PRIVATE BUSINESS

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill

Motion made,
	That the promoters of the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill which originated in this House in the last Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the bill in the present session of Parliament; and the petition for the bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
	That the bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office no later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;
	That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill presented in this House in the last Parliament;
	That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House;
	That in the present session of Parliament the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the last Parliament, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
	That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Ethical Trading Initiative

Khalid Mahmood: If she will make a statement on her Department's support for the ethical trading initiative.

Clare Short: My Department has supported the ethical trading initiative since its establishment in 1998. It is an alliance of major British retailers, development non- governmental organisations and trade unions dedicated to the improvement of labour standards throughout the supply chain of the retailers concerned. The ETI brings together £60 billion in annual turnover, and therefore has a considerable worldwide reach. The retailers subject themselves to independent monitoring, and work to bring their supply chains into compliance with International Labour Organisation standards in a way that brings benefits to workers in developing countries.

Khalid Mahmood: Does my right hon. Friend agree that improving the observance of core labour standards in supply chains can help developing country workers to get a better deal out of trade? What further steps can her Department take through the ETI and other initiatives to ensure that labour standards are better observed worldwide?

Clare Short: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. As the House knows, core labour standards include having no child or bonded labour. Some children are still working when they should be at school because their parents are so poor, and some people have to bond their future and their children into labour. That shows what desperate levels of poverty we have in the world.
	The ETI is a very important initiative: a £60 billion turnover has a wide international influence. We want to build on it and spread it across the world. It is being watched, and may be imitated, in other countries worldwide.

Medicines (Patents and Pricing)

Ian Gibson: What discussions she has had with the pharmaceutical industry about patents and pricing of medicines.

Clare Short: On 8 October, I chaired the first meeting of the working group on access to medicines, which brings together United Kingdom Ministers, the pharmaceutical industry, the World Health Organisation and the World Trade Organisation, among others. Our aim is to encourage research and development for new drugs, and access to existing drugs, to treat the diseases of poverty across the developing world. The group has made good progress in identifying ways in which to encourage more research and development. The second and third meetings will discuss donations, pricing and affordability.

Ian Gibson: Does my right hon. Friend agree, on the basis of her experience, that the pharmaceutical industry is much more interested in patents than in patients? How does she interpret the current bout of philanthropy among the big pharma-companies, which, after all, measure their annual profits in millions of pounds and trillions of dollars?

Clare Short: Pharmaceutical companies are, of course, run for profit. That includes Indian pharmaceutical companies. In consequence, only 10 per cent. of worldwide research is conducted to obtain better drugs for the diseases of poverty: malaria, HIV-AIDS—for which a vaccine is needed—and tuberculosis, including new strains. The poor of the world cannot generate a market.
	We are trying to spread basic health care systems across the world. At present, even if the drugs were free, most poor people would not get them, because they have no access to health care. We are trying to establish worldwide alliances aimed at conveying cheaper drugs to poor countries, allowing pharmaceutical companies to charge higher prices in other countries so that they achieve a rate of return, and bringing about a global partnership that will produce better treatment for the diseases of poverty. The pharmaceutical companies are co-operating, but this is a new dance for them.

Richard Allan: Will the Secretary of State include in her discussions a specific look at the impact of the patenting of human genetic material? It is feared that, as patents are taken out on the human genetic sequence, researchers in both the public sector and developing countries—even when doing their own research—may have to pay prohibitive charges to those who hold the licences on the material that they need.

Clare Short: I have not looked into that in any detail, but we have set up a Commission on Intellectual Property. We have experts from across the world trying to ensure that the law on intellectual property—which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is strongly linked to patenting—serves the interests of poor countries, and does not marginalise them. I will ask my Department to look into whether we need to consider human genetic material, and I will write to him.

Hugh Bayley: More people in Africa die of malaria than of AIDS. It is estimated that if malaria could be abolished in Africa, the continent's gross domestic product would be increased by some 15 or 20 per cent.—four times as much as the continent receives in aid. Does not the situation cry out for a project by Governments in the rich world, Governments in the poor world and the pharmaceutical industry to work together to eradicate malaria?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. I believe that 1 million children in Africa die of malaria every year. Obviously we want action on both malaria and HIV-AIDS; we do not want to switch between the two.
	There is a World Health Organisation initiative, "Roll Back Malaria", which we are supporting strongly. Even by applying consistency to the drugs that we have, and ensuring that all children sleep under insecticide-dipped bed nets, we could massively reduce the toll on both life and health.
	Ill health is linked to poverty. When people are ill they cannot work, and when their children are ill they beg, borrow and steal to obtain drugs for them. As my hon. Friend says, there is masses more that we can do, but we are also supporting international efforts to develop new drugs for malaria. When the drugs are not available, resistance develops. If the drugs could be used more consistently, they would be more effective.

Michael Fabricant: The right hon. Lady will be aware of the argument presented by the pharmaceutical companies that if they cannot hold on to patents, they will have insufficient funding to develop new drugs. What is her answer to them?

Clare Short: My answer to that is that the hon. Gentleman was not listening earlier. It is a complex area. I do understand. It is the Government's strong view that we need a framework of intellectual property law across the world to achieve collaboration whereby cheaper drugs are available at lower prices in poor countries, pharmaceutical companies enjoy higher returns in other countries and there are international agreements on differential pricing. We need flexibility in the agreements that takes account of the needs of poor countries, but we need patents and intellectual property protection to get the research and the drugs that the poor in the world need.

Africa

Margaret Moran: What action her Department is taking to support poverty reduction and development in Africa.

Clare Short: Since 1997, we have doubled our spending in Africa and focused our efforts on poverty reduction. On present rates of progress, none of the international development targets will be met in Africa, but significant progress is being made in some countries, which shows that we could do better. To speed up economic growth and poverty reduction across the continent requires a much bigger effort in resolving conflict, dealing with HlV-AIDS and improving the effectiveness of economic management and public services. There needs to be a crackdown on corruption and more investment. That is what the new Africa initiative and the partnership around that is meant to drive.

Margaret Moran: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. As she will be aware, Malawi is one of the poorest nations in Africa. Is she aware that on a visit some years ago, parliamentarians were advised that the lack of education among women, and the lack of sex education in particular, were among the causes of poverty there? Fifty-four per cent. of its population live below the poverty line and 48 per cent. of its children are malnourished. What assistance is this country giving to Malawi to deal with those causes of poverty?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. Malawi is desperately poor. Something approaching 64 per cent. of the population are chronically malnourished. It has few natural resources and is densely populated.
	We have a growing programme in Malawi. My hon. Friend the Under–Secretary is to visit Malawi in the next month or so to take our programme forward. We have focused on primary education. All the evidence is clear: if a generation of girls get through school, they bring about profound development effects in their country as they grow up. They have fewer children and those children are more likely to survive, household income rises, the children go to school and receive better health care. We are working on that and on reproductive health care and reducing maternal mortality. I agree with all the points that my hon. Friend makes.

Tony Baldry: Does the Secretary of State agree that we do not need new pledges and agreements? We just need the international community to deliver on existing commitments. The international community promised at Copenhagen in 1995 that there would be universal primary education and a substantial reduction in child mortality by 2015. At present, it is not going to meet any of those targets. What can be done to galvanise it into meeting them?

Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We do not need more and more conferences and meetings across the world. We need to implement what we have already agreed. I am happy to say that the hon. Gentleman is wrong to think that we are not on course to meet any of the targets: we are on course to meet the target of halving the proportion of people living in poverty by 2015, which means 1 billion people making the journey out of extreme poverty between 1990 and 2015. However, there will be more to do because the world population will grow.
	Some of the other targets have been met in Asia but will not be met in Africa on present trends. We need to up our ambition. We have more focus and agreement on the targets. However, we need to co-ordinate our efforts so that we do not have piecemeal projects but improve governance, the effectiveness of economic management and the provision of health care and education. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and hope to work more with him on those issues. We are making more progress, but we will have to do an awful lot more if we are to have a just world and we will not have a safe world unless it is more just.

Tom Clarke: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to study the UNICEF report entitled, "The State of the World's Children 2002", which shows that malnourishment among children in sub-Saharan Africa has increased in the past decade; that only 47 per cent. of children are immunised against diphtheria; and that one in 13 women are likely to die during childbirth? Is not her focus on poverty in that region absolutely right, if only because it offers the opportunity for others in the international community to follow her lead?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those comments. Most people find it unbearable to think of large numbers of children dying before the age of one or five—before they have had the chance to develop their lives. However, in a world that has more than enough food for everyone, it is somehow even more unbearable to think of vast numbers of children being so chronically malnourished that their bodies and brains do not develop properly and their whole lives are blighted by hunger.
	We have made progress in African countries such as Rwanda, Uganda and Mozambique, and in post-conflict countries such as Tanzania and Ghana, but we have got to do better. Africa will not meet any of the international development targets without a bigger effort. Immunisation rates are improving, but we can do more if the world has the will to co-operate.

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the answers that she has given so far. Can she assure the House that in targeting aid and encouraging investment, she will focus on countries such as Tanzania, which is already making progress in terms of good governance, democracy and the rule of law, rather than albeit understandably focusing only on countries with critical problems? To do so will encourage other countries to follow that lead.

Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's fundamental point. Governments who are determined to drive reform by building up systems of government can prove much more effective. All the research suggests that aid proves more effective in countries where there are reformers, but also in countries where there are large numbers of poor people. We are increasingly backing reformers, and rightly so because that produces results, and we need models of success. However, some of the poorest and most oppressed people in the world live under bad Governments, and we must look for more subtle ways to intervene, bring immediate help and drive demand for better governance. That is the more difficult task, but we must not neglect it.

Sudan

Malcolm Savidge: What action her Department is taking in co-operation with other Government Departments to promote an end to war in Sudan.

Clare Short: Excluding a gap of perhaps 10 years, the war in Sudan has been fought almost continuously since its independence in 1956. It has caused the loss of 2 million to 3 million lives, the displacement of millions of people and deepening suffering and poverty across Sudan, particularly in the south. The people of Sudan desperately need a peace agreement that brings justice and development to all parts of Sudan. The recent lifting of UN sanctions provides an opportunity for progress. The Government are working to energise a greater international effort to achieve that peace agreement.

Malcolm Savidge: I agree with the Secretary of State that the lifting of UN sanctions offers a real window of opportunity. Does she agree that both sides must show a real readiness for compromise if we are to achieve a settlement, which is essential if we are to offer the genuine hope of poverty reduction and development for all the people of Sudan?

Clare Short: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. In certain countries such as Sudan, some of those who lead the fighting live comfortably while the people rot and suffer. There have been calls for Sharia law across the territory, which is unacceptable given that half the people are not Muslims. It must be possible to respect each other's religion—to respect an Islamic north and a Christian and animist south. There must be progress, and it is in the interests of everyone, in both parts of Sudan, that we achieve peace. Now is the time for increased international effort, and I have some hope that we can make progress. Sudan is a heavily indebted poor country. If it could achieve peace, it could get debt relief, and we could get the development programme going and ensure that the oil revenues are used for the benefit of the people.

Jenny Tonge: What representations have the Government made to the Government of Sudan on the recent increase in the bombing of Bahr el Ghazal, which was the famine area in 1997? What effect does she think the bombing will have on the delivery of aid to that region?

Clare Short: We make constant representations to the Government of Sudan and there has been some progress. Obviously, we want the bombing to be reduced and, indeed, ended in Sudan, as in many other parts of the world, especially Afghanistan. The Government of Sudan have co-operated in the current response to the worldwide terrorist attacks. The US Government recently appointed a special representative to try to drive forward progress. There is a real chance of progress in Sudan, and we must all work hard to ensure that that takes place.

Maternal Deaths

Julia Drown: What steps are being taken to reduce maternal deaths in less developed countries.

Hilary Benn: More than 500,000 women die each year during childbirth in developing countries, where maternal mortality rates are up to 100 times higher than in western Europe.
	We have invested more than £1 billion since 1997 in helping to provide better health care overall, including for pregnant women. That makes a real difference in reducing deaths. We have significant maternal health programmes in Malawi, Nepal, Kenya, Pakistan and Bolivia. We also support the World Health Organisation's "Make Pregnancy Safer" initiative.

Julia Drown: Is my hon Friend aware that 30,000 of those maternal deaths, and the deaths of 200,000 babies every year, occur because of tetanus acquired at birth? Often it is the infected blade that cuts through the umbilical cord that condemns the mother or baby to death, even though an inexpensive vaccine is available that would prevent that. Will my hon. Friend work with the United Nations Children's Fund—UNICEF—to explore ways of ending these wholly unnecessary deaths?

Hilary Benn: I know that my hon. Friend takes a particular interest in this subject, and we welcome the work that UNICEF is doing on immunisation in general and neo-natal tetanus in particular. One contribution is improving the overall level of health care so that knowledge is spread, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently approved a £35 million contribution to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation initiative, which is working closely with UNICEF to immunise more people against tetanus and other diseases.

Caroline Spelman: High levels of maternal death account for lowered life expectancy among women, which in Afghanistan is as low as 38.7 years. That is due in no small part to the lack of medical care, but also to the repression of women under the Taliban. What work has the Department done to help women in Afghanistan, and what steps is it taking to press for their better treatment?

Hilary Benn: I welcome the hon. Lady to her first International Development questions and wish her every success in the post.
	In recent years, the United Kingdom has contributed some £32 million in support to the people of Afghanistan to address the problem that she raised and others. As she will be only too well aware, the situation in Afghanistan is extremely difficult. The Secretary of State will make a statement shortly. We must make progress so that we can restore good governance to Afghanistan, because only when we reach that point will we be in a position to try to deal with the issues that the hon. Lady raised.

Caroline Spelman: The Minister mentioned good governance. The vision of the new Government of Afghanistan that the Foreign Secretary presented yesterday made no mention of women. What representations have the Department made to ensure that the new Government of Afghanistan better represents women?

Hilary Benn: The representation of women in the new Afghanistan will be crucial. One of the biggest problems that that country faces in its future development is the fact that half the next generation have not been educated for the past five or six years. The single most useful intervention that could be made in the future of Afghanistan is to ensure that the next generation of girls gets into school, because, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, that can lead to all sorts of benefits in respect of development and, ultimately, the participation of women in society more broadly.

Nigeria

Linda Gilroy: If she will make a statement on her Department's work in Nigeria.

Hilary Benn: Nigeria has suffered a long period of economic, social and political disruption under a series of military Governments, and poverty is widespread. So far, reform has been disappointing, but we are committed to long-term support so that the country can fulfil its considerable potential. DFID is working at federal level to support economic reform, the reduction of poverty and strengthening of the justice system, and at local level, with four states, to show how reform can deliver practical benefits to the poor. We also continue to support the fight against HIV-AIDS.

Linda Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will know that I and a number of members of the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visited Nigeria this summer. We came away with a strong and clear understanding of Nigeria's pivotal importance to Africa's future welfare. Will my hon. Friend reassure the House that he will keep a close eye on the Department's programme in Nigeria, especially in light of the regrettable incidents of recent days and weeks?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Nigeria has one fifth of the continent's population. About 70 per cent. of the country's population live on less than a dollar a day, so progress in Nigeria will be crucial to Africa's chances of meeting the millennium development goals.
	My hon. Friend will know from her recent visit that Nigeria has great natural resources. It has enormous potential if it can put the past behind it and seize the opportunity that now presents itself. The House will also be aware that a dozen leaders of African states met in Abuja formally to launch the new African initiative, which we greatly welcome.

Ronnie Campbell: I read in a newspaper this morning that there is talk of a Marshall aid plan for Africa. Is that a possibility, or is it just pie in the sky?

Hilary Benn: The initiative that the leaders of Africa have taken in establishing the new African initiative is a very welcome development. It is a recognition, from within the continent, that Africa needs to take control of the process involved in dealing with the issues of good governance and the other matters that hon. Members raised in earlier questions. The international community's responsibility is to make sure that, by helping to improve health care and education, we play our part in supporting those Governments as they reform and tackle the questions of governance. That will lead to the sort of regeneration in Africa that I think the whole House wants.

Zimbabwe

Nicholas Winterton: What actions she proposes to promote good governance in Zimbabwe.

Clare Short: We have worked hard but completely without success to try to prevent the continuing deterioration in economic and political governance in Zimbabwe. The economic situation is very grim, with a 5 per cent. fall in gross domestic product last year and growing poverty and hunger across that agriculturally rich country.
	At a meeting of Commonwealth Ministers convened by Nigeria in Abuja on 6 September, the Zimbabwean Government undertook to restore the rule of law and to act against violence and intimidation. Unfortunately, there has been no progress since 8 September. Commonwealth Ministers are due to visit Harare this week to discuss that lack of progress.

Nicholas Winterton: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for the honesty of that response. As she said, the Commonwealth Ministers action group is visiting Harare this week. Those of us who have taken a great interest in the wonderful country of Zimbabwe over a number of decades recognise the role that it has played historically as the larder of central southern Africa. Will she say what message the Government are sending through that action group to bring pressure to get the people of Zimbabwe to reject President Mugabe and elect a Government who can give them democracy and progress, and enable Zimbabwe to play a major role in Africa?

Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The situation in Zimbabwe is a complete tragedy. Zimbabwe is a naturally wealthy country with a highly educated population. It should be an engine of economic growth and progress for Africa, but instead it is deteriorating and damaging the economic development of all neighbouring countries. There are other tragedies: we are preparing for food aid—imagine that, in a country so agriculturally rich—and one in three adults are infected with HIV, the worst rate in the world.
	Presidential elections are due. It is very important that everyone in the world mobilises to try to ensure that the people of Zimbabwe are given a chance to have a free and fair election, and to change their Government if that, is their wish.

Nick Hawkins: Does the right hon. Lady not recognise that one of the problems with President Mugabe's regime is that he presents to the media the removal of white farmers from land that they own legitimately as a campaign to help the landless, when in fact the victims of his policies are the farm workers, while the so-called war veterans have been generously provided for by him and his associates ever since he came to power? What will the Government do to redress the misrepresentation of what is happening in agricultural areas such as Nyama and Mutare in the eyes of the world's media?

Clare Short: There is no doubt that there is a strong case for land redistribution in Zimbabwe. That was the view of the previous Government, and it is the view of this Government. It needs to be done in a transparent, law-abiding way that focuses on the needs of poor people rather than political cronyism and the destruction of Zimbabwe's agricultural productive capacity. The current push for forcible land seizures looks to be more political; it followed on from Zimbabwe's Government losing a referendum and fearing that they were losing political support.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that in the early stages, other African Governments had some sympathy with regard to land redistribution and were not as critical as they might have been. That is not the situation any longer. Neighbouring countries are seeing the economic effects on themselves and on large numbers of black farm workers who are losing their jobs and living in poverty. The whole world understands how bad things are, and we are all working together to ensure that things are put right as soon as possible.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Missile Defence

Julian Lewis: If it is his policy to support ballistic missile defence in principle.

Tony Blair: The position is unchanged. We believe that it is important to tackle the potential threat from ballistic missiles with a comprehensive strategy that includes arms control and counter-proliferation, diplomacy, deterrence and defensive measures. We will continue to work closely with the United States in all these areas. We understand the role that missile defence can play as one element of that comprehensive strategy, but as yet we have had no specific proposal from the United States.

Julian Lewis: The Prime Minister will appreciate that that question was tabled long before the events of 11 September. In the light of his admirable decision to stand shoulder to shoulder with our American allies over those terrible events, will he now, once and for all, state whether he is prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with them over ballistic missile defence, particularly in view of the fact that more than 200 of his parliamentary colleagues are clearly massively opposed to ballistic missile defence?

Tony Blair: I do not agree with those who are opposed to it. During the summit with President Bush in February, we made it clear that we were prepared to look at defensive as well as offensive systems. We have not as yet, however, had a specific proposal from the United States. I think that it is better to declare our position finally when we do have such a proposal. I take this opportunity of welcoming greatly the dialogue between Russia and the United States, which I think offers a way forward for the future.

Tam Dalyell: There is no foundation, is there, to press reports that the Prime Minister has already given undertakings of support to President Bush and that that will be made public once certain difficulties with the Labour party are overcome?

Tony Blair: We might have to wait quite a long time in that case. The private position is exactly the same as the public position.

Engagements

Michael Fabricant: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 October.

Tony Blair: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.

Michael Fabricant: The whole House will be aware of the crippling effects of rheumatoid arthritis. Some three quarters of a million people suffer from the disease. May I draw to the attention of the Prime Minister the plight of my constituent, Councillor Tony Lanchester, who happens to be the former Labour leader of Lichfield district council, and who suffers from the disease? He goes to Cannock hospital but cannot be prescribed drugs for the disease because the health authority will not pay for it. In the next bed, patients from Sutton Coldfield have their drugs paid for by their health authority. That state of affairs is repeated in every constituency in the country. What steps can the Prime Minister take to stop this postcode prescribing?

Tony Blair: I greatly sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's constituent. Rheumatoid arthritis is a very debilitating condition. Under the present system, there is postcode prescribing and health authorities may make different decisions for patients in different parts of the country. That is precisely why we want to change that system, which we inherited. We have introduced a new system in which there is independent assessment of drugs and their effect on people. Then, because of the increased funding, we are able to ensure that those drugs are available. I hope, therefore, that the problems of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others will be dealt with in time.

Oona King: Will the Prime Minister consider an area where the level of infant mortality is as high as that in Afghanistan—the Great Lakes region and, specifically, the Congo? In the past three years, 2.5 million people have died from conflict- related deaths there. Will my right hon. Friend consider the recommendations of the all-party group and look into brokering a package to help people in the Great Lakes region?

Tony Blair: The all-party group has done us a service in providing that report. As my hon. Friend says, literally millions of people have died in the past decade as a result of conflict and famine in the Great Lakes region. For that reason, we strongly support the Lusaka accord and hope that it can be implemented. We are working with others in the region to try to ensure that the people there have some chance of stability for the future. As we deal with the appalling situation that we are having to deal with in Afghanistan, it is right that we remember that other parts of the world have also been scarred by conflict. If we put the international focus on them, I am sure that we can do some good there too.

Iain Duncan Smith: As someone who found himself on patrol in Northern Ireland 25 years ago, I welcome any moves toward peace, particularly ones as significant as those made by the IRA yesterday. They were part of a peace process that was begun by John Major and taken forward by the Prime Minister. It is vital, however, that that event is not a one-off gesture, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will understand, but a process that leads to all IRA weapons being put beyond use, as specified by the Belfast agreement. Will the Prime Minister tell us when he expects decommissioning to be completed? Will that be before the de Chastelain commission remit runs out this February?

Tony Blair: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome of the move that was made yesterday. It is a big step forward and it deserves a generous response. In effect, the position in Northern Ireland is that every political party of any substance or with any support in any part of the community recognises that the only way to resolve differences in future is by peaceful and democratic means. Yesterday was a day when people finally understood that the gun and the bomb have no place whatever in the future of Northern Ireland. I certainly pay tribute to the efforts of my predecessor in the peace process and to those of successive Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, not least my right hon. Friend the present incumbent, who has done an immense amount in the past few months to move the process forward. On decommissioning, as the de Chastelain commission said yesterday, that is in its hands as part of its mandate and that is the right way to resolve it.

Iain Duncan Smith: Taking note of what the Prime Minister says about all the parties, does he agree that it is now the responsibility of the so-called loyalist groups to come forward and ante up to this action too? Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he has had any indications that so-called loyalist paramilitaries are willing to make any reciprocal response and does he agree that loyalist political leaders, who have done a lot of talking recently, now have a major responsibility for ensuring that their arms are also put beyond use?

Tony Blair: Certainly, that is right. The loyalist leaders and paramilitaries have an obligation to do everything they can to put weapons beyond use too, and to bring under control situations such as the one that exists in north Belfast, which rightly shocked people throughout the United Kingdom. I very much hope that loyalists will respond properly to this move. Most of us believe that some of those who engage in paramilitary action who call themselves loyalists actually have no loyalty to the proper principles of the United Kingdom at all.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland spoke today and yesterday about security normalisation, but he also said that the process of demilitarisation should begin. Obviously, where there is a clear reduction in the level of terrorist, threat changes to security can of course be made, but the threat from dissident groups such as the Real IRA remains high. As one of them chillingly said on the radio this morning:
	"The Real IRA will take up the mantle of being the IRA now, and continue the challenge to Britain's occupation."
	Given that even after the complete decommissioning process there will still be a large number of illegal arms in Northern Ireland, will the Prime Minister assure the House that changes to security will be made only on the basis of a clear assessment of the terrorist threat, and that nothing will be done that weakens our continuing ability to deal with terrorism both in the Province and in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Tony Blair: Of course we will and should act on advice. We have an absolute duty to make sure that we protect the people in Northern Ireland. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall do what is necessary for that. As a result of yesterday's move—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will disclose the details later—there are changes that we can make, but they are fully consistent with the advice that we have. Of course we all want to see a situation in Northern Ireland as soon as possible where policing and security are carried out on a normal basis. That is what the people of Northern Ireland wish to have.
	Of course there is a risk from splinter republican groups—the so-called Real IRA—and loyalist groups. It is obviously important that we take account of that, but it is also important that we do not let any of those groups have any form of veto over the process of moving forward to a more peaceful era for Northern Ireland. So, yes, we will act on advice—we have to protect our people properly—but we believe that yesterday's announcement changes the situation significantly.

Derek Wyatt: As we struggle to define global politics after the events of 11 September, does my right hon. Friend think that, as part of that discussion, we need to consider relocating those world organisations—largely born in the 1940s—such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation, from America to places in the rest of the world?

Tony Blair: World-based organisations are indeed located in different parts of the world—some in Geneva, some in London, some in the United States of America and some in other parts of the world. Decisions as to the location of future organisations will be made at a future date.

Charles Kennedy: That sounds like a pretty wise answer.
	Given that because of the sheer pressure of numbers of refugees amassing at present on the borders of Pakistan, Pakistan has felt obliged to close its borders to Afghanistan, what steps are the Government taking to reopen the issue of debt relief to Pakistan for the financial, physical and internal political pressures on that country? Indeed, that applies not only to Pakistan itself but to the wider Asian sub-continent. Does the Prime Minister agree that tackling debt relief now could be of real practical benefit?

Tony Blair: We are doing what we can on that front. We recognise the importance of debt reduction for Pakistan. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development have both worked hard to do that. We are taking a series of measures in terms of the aid we are giving Pakistan—indeed we have increased that recently. Of course much of the debt is not actually ours, so there is a limit to what we can do, but we are working with the international community to do it. The fact that Pakistan passed the first phase of its IMF programme and did so in a way that should commend itself to the IMF is a big step forward in itself and will of course lead to significant measures from the international community to help Pakistan.

Charles Kennedy: Does the Prime Minister concur that the allied coalition members who are not expected or required to make a military contribution should, none the less be strongly encouraged to make a financial contribution? Will he take every possible opportunity to stress that course of action to them?

Tony Blair: We are doing that. Indeed, to be fair, many countries are now helping Pakistan substantially. Pakistan is also dealing with the problem of about 2 million refugees from Afghanistan. One of the reasons why we have asked for additional sums of aid to be made available is precisely to deal with the refugee problem. Some $700 million has been agreed for the humanitarian effort as a whole and, if more is necessary, I am sure it will be agreed. The finance is there, but we need to make sure that the refugees are being properly looked after and that the organisation is in place to do that.

Patrick Hall: During the Gulf war, there was much talk about building a new world order and, after the Gulf war, we heard very little more about it. Will the Prime Minister therefore take it from me how deeply and widely welcomed is his personal commitment to the need for social and economic justice across the world? Will he tell me what actions he intends to pursue internationally to achieve that new dispensation after the present necessary military actions are over?

Tony Blair: I hope that we have learned from the mistakes that were made by the west in Afghanistan some 10 or 12 years ago. The truth is that we left the country with very little hope of reconstruction. As a result of that, the Taliban regime eventually came to power, and the consequences of that we now know. That is why it is important that we work with the United Nations to make sure that there is a broad-based successor regime to the Taliban and then commit ourselves to the reconstruction of the country, the elimination of its drugs trade and the production of stability in the political process. As I think we now recognise, that would not merely be right for the people of Afghanistan but would be in our self-interest.

Annabelle Ewing: The Prime Minister told his party conference earlier this month that the humanitarian campaign would be pursued with every bit as much thought and planning as the military campaign. Although I appreciate that there will be a statement later this afternoon on the international humanitarian crisis, will he give the House his personal assurance that the military campaign being pursued is compatible with the humanitarian campaign? Will he spell out in detail how it is working in practice?

Tony Blair: I do not know whether the hon. Lady saw the comments from the World Food Programme, saying, indeed, that it was not the bombing that was stopping food getting through into Afghanistan. Food is getting in, and I think that, in the past week or so, something like 5,000 tonnes of food have gone in. That is not sufficient—I think the requirement is 1,700 tonnes a day. We are doing everything we can, but the principal problem that is faced as convoys go into Afghanistan is the activities of the Taliban regime.
	I hope that the hon. Lady will accept my commitment to do all that we can to make sure that the humanitarian process is taken forward and will join me in calling on the Taliban regime to facilitate aid going into Afghanistan and not to engage in the harrying tactics, the theft of aid, the theft of vehicles and the refusal to co-operate with UN aid workers that are, at present, the hallmark of that regime.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Prime Minister not recognise that the continued bombing campaign, including the use of cluster bombs, in Afghanistan is forcing large numbers of people to seek refuge in Pakistan; is bringing devastation and poverty to the people of Afghanistan; and seems to be directed, in part, against conscripted soldiers and against civilian targets? Does he accept last week's call by the aid agencies for a halt in the bombing to allow the humanitarian aid to get in? That would prevent more death and destruction.

Tony Blair: I just answered a question about the humanitarian programme and I drew attention to comments of spokespersons for the World Food Programme who said that it is not the bombing that is preventing the food getting through.
	In respect of the campaign itself, there are no civilian targets at all. Unlike bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network who set out to kill as many civilians as they possibly could, we do everything we can to minimise civilian casualties. As I said earlier today, there is a simple choice. After an atrocity such as that of 11 September, we decide either that we are going to act against those responsible and against those sheltering those who are responsible or that we do not. In the light of that atrocity and the fact that we know that that network of terror intends to commit further such atrocities, I cannot see how we could possibly stand back and do nothing.
	I respect entirely my hon. Friend's right to disagree with the course that we are taking, but I believe that course to be right.

Iain Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the European convention on human rights as incorporated into United Kingdom law is proving an obstacle to protecting the lives of British citizens?

Tony Blair: No, I do not accept that. However, we have made it clear that our plans include a derogation from article 5 if that is necessary.

Iain Duncan Smith: Apart from that slight contradiction, is not the problem more fundamental than the Prime Minister implies in his solution? The Home Secretary said yesterday that he shares the instincts of the British people, who cannot understand why terrorists are able to hide in this country when they would not be able to do so in, for example, France. Sadly, the Home Secretary's proposals so far will not allow those who threaten our national security to be deported any quicker. Is it not true that simply locking such people up indefinitely cannot be a substitute for deporting them from our country? [Interruption.]

Tony Blair: The answer to hon. Members who shout out is that the Home Secretary mentioned the derogation from article 5 in his statement a week ago. Obviously, they did not pay much attention to it.
	I find the right hon. Gentleman's points curious. In response to the Home Secretary's statement, the shadow Home Secretary asked for detailed scrutiny of legislation, but basically supported the proposals. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have offered him an opportunity to consult us and to produce different proposals. However, it would be a mistake to scrap the European convention on human rights as incorporated into British law. I do not know whether that is his position. If it is, we are willing to listen to him. I believe that it is possible to make the necessary changes and protect our citizens without getting rid of the European convention on human rights, which gives our citizens a legitimate course of action in certain circumstances against the Government.

Iain Duncan Smith: It is not going from one extreme to the other. The Prime Minister has taken a valuable lead, for which I applaud him, in building the coalition with, for example, the Arab states. Is he aware, as I am, of their dismay as they see convicted terrorists using our legal system to avoid their natural judicial process? When we are asking our allies to make huge efforts as part of the war against terrorism, is it not time to ensure that terrorists cannot shelter behind our laws? In that same spirit, we stand ready to work with the Prime Minister to tackle the problems that are being caused by the European convention on human rights. Surely—this is the point—when the law is wrong the law must be changed.

Tony Blair: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's general point. It is important that our laws do not give succour or help to people who engage in terrorist activities. That is why the Home Secretary made his statement and why we want to change the law on, for example, extradition, because that process takes far too long. All that is agreed. Indeed, last year we tightened the law in the Terrorism Act 2000 to allow us for the first time to take certain actions against groups that operate out of this country. I also entirely agree—I have made this point often—that we cannot ask for the support of other international leaders in the fight against terrorism if we allow groups who harbour terrorists to operate out of Britain. All that is agreed. However, if the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we get rid of the incorporation into British law of the European convention on human rights, then I disagree, because that would be a mistake.

Kevin McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are engaged in the coalition because of the principles contained in the European convention on human rights? We are defending human dignity and people's freedom under the law, including their right to a fair trial and to be protected from arbitrary justice. The moment we start derogating from or denying those principles, we give the victory to the terrorist.

Tony Blair: It is also worth pointing out that the European convention on human rights—which is not a product of the European Union, incidentally—is something on the basis of which people are able to litigate, whereas previously they were only able to do so by going to the European Court of Human Rights. What we have done allows people to litigate here in this country, and I regard that as a sensible thing to have done.
	There is specific provision in certain circumstances for a derogation from some of the articles of the convention, and I think that that is a right step to take, but to get rid of the convention altogether is wrong. Across the range of government, there are circumstances in which it is right that the citizen should have a general ability to take Government to court and claim that certain actions of Government transgress basic civil liberties. That is a step forward for our constitution, not a step backward.

Simon Burns: Does the Prime Minister remember saying on 30 April 1997, in the days when he used to be the master of spin, that the nation had 24 hours in which to save the national health service? Why, 39,255 hours later, is he saying that he needs more time in which to save the NHS?

Tony Blair: The answer is simple. The policies of the previous Conservative Government had resulted in underfunding of the NHS, a cut in the number of training places for nurses, a cut in hospital beds and an end to the hospital building programme. All those things have now been changed, with the result, as the hon. Gentleman will know from his constituency, that we are now putting more money than ever before into the health service and the education service. The difference between my political party and his is that whereas mine believes that that money should go into the health service, his believes in taking it back out again.

Tony Lloyd: In the longer term battle against terrorism, peace in the middle east must move rapidly up the agenda. A peace that offers justice and security to both Palestinians and Israelis must be restored to the world's agenda. Does my right hon. Friend agree that only outside intervention can break the current deadlock in the middle east? Will he give a commitment to lead, with the same energy as he has rightly led in Afghanistan, the charge for a diplomatic solution to bring pressure to bear on Israel and the Palestine Authority to return to the negotiating table and secure the peace that will help the people of the middle east?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right to say that some outside help might be needed to get the peace process in the middle east restarted, but nothing can happen unless the key parties themselves want to take that process forward. I urge them strongly to do so. For all the difficulties, all the bloodshed, the daily funerals, the reprisals and the retaliation, people know that at some point Israelis and Palestinians will have to come back to the negotiating table and work out how to live side by side in peace. Whatever difficulties we have met during the peace process in Northern Ireland, at least it offers some sign that if people persevere, whatever the problems they face, it is better than leaving a vacuum into which extremism inevitably moves.

David Trimble: Recognising that an important step was taken yesterday in Northern Ireland—although it is not the end of the road by any means—I should like to tell the Prime Minister that in response to that and in the interests of good government, and entirely without prejudice to the decision to be taken by my party on Saturday, earlier this afternoon I again nominated the Ulster Unionist Ministers in the Executive.
	However, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reflect again on the important point that was put to him by the Leader of the Opposition in respect of decommissioning and the fact that the remit of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning expires in February 2002. Although we would love to leave matters to the commission, primary responsibility rests with the Government. If when we reach February 2002 some, any or all paramilitary organisations have not achieved complete disarmament, what sanctions will the Government apply to them, so as to avoid others having to apply sanctions?

Tony Blair: The point raised by the right hon. Gentleman is legitimate. It is important that we make sure that the members international commission can carry out their mandate in full. What I was saying earlier to the Leader of the Opposition, is that it is important that they are the ones now seized of that issue and that they carry it out in accordance with that mandate. I am sure that if any difficulties arise in relation to that, they can be sorted out.

Malcolm Savidge: Given that international unity is crucial to our present campaign, will my right hon. Friend encourage our American allies to show caution and flexibility over divisive policies, particularly in assessing the priority that they still seem to be giving to breaching the international treaty obligation which the United States, the United Kingdom and nearly all nations entered into last year to maintain and strengthen the anti-ballistic missile treaty?

Tony Blair: Of course, it is important that we strengthen measures against nuclear proliferation. All that I would say to my hon. Friend is that President Bush is right to say that weapons of mass destruction and their proliferation bring about a change in the context in which we discuss these issues. As I said when I was with President Bush in Camp David in February, it is important that we look at defensive and offensive systems to try and take the issue forward. I think that my hon. Friend will find in the discussions, most recently with President Putin following the summit in China, that the United States and Russia are reaching towards a new and better understanding of how they progress on those issues.
	I have always taken the view that it is best to make progress through dialogue and consultation. However, it is true that we have a new situation today in international relations and the international threat that we face. I believe that President Bush is right, to raise the issue of what are the best offensive and defensive systems for countering that threat. I believe that with good will we shall reach agreement.

Afghanistan (Humanitarian Situation)

Clare Short: I should like to keep the House informed about the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan and my recent visit to Pakistan. As the House knows, the humanitarian situation remains fragile. Humanitarian agencies, particularly the World Food Programme, are performing impressively under very difficult circumstances. Deliveries of food and other essential relief supplies, which were halted after 11 September, have resumed, and the quantities crossing into Afghanistan are increasing. Deliveries inside Afghanistan are continuing but are very difficult. So far the refugee outflow has been smaller than expected; contingency plans are in place in case the exodus increases.
	The situation is very worrying, but the House will be aware that a severe crisis existed long before the events of 11 September and is the result of 20 years of conflict, the policies of the Taliban, and the drought of the last three years. All those events have devastated the livelihoods of millions of people. Emergency humanitarian supplies have been provided inside Afghanistan and to refugees in Pakistan and Iran for many years. Immediately after 11 September all international staff were withdrawn from Afghanistan because of fears for their safety, which led to a cessation of all supplies into Afghanistan. I and others have been working since then to get supplies moving again.
	Because of the harassment of humanitarian workers and Taliban restrictions on the use of telephones, it is difficult for aid agencies to communicate with colleagues inside Afghanistan. Precise information on deliveries is therefore sparse. The Taliban have looted the offices and stocks of some aid agencies. Afghan hauliers are also fearful of harassment and attack, but despite those difficulties programmes inside Afghanistan continue, thanks to the brave efforts of local staff of the United Nations, the Red Cross and non-governmental organisations who have continued to work in the face of extreme hardship and serious personal danger.
	Our capacity to influence the humanitarian situation is limited. Access to many areas of the country is not possible, but the international community remains determined to do all in its power to continue to provide desperately needed assistance. We are looking at all options; for example, the World Food Programme is looking at air drops and the possibility of opening new land routes from neighbouring countries, such as Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Since deliveries recommenced on 11 October, the World Food Programme has continued to make progress; regional stockpiles are adequate and deliveries are entering the country in increasing amounts. The World Food Programme is moving towards achieving its target of delivering 1,700 tonnes of food a day. Over 5,000 tonnes were delivered in the past week, and when I was in Peshawar a few days ago rates had reached 1,300 tonnes a day. We need to do better, but we are making progress. We are also doing all that we can to maintain the onward distribution of those supplies from the major warehouses inside Afghanistan. Given the difficulties, the World Food Programme is now looking at delivering food direct to more destinations in the country.
	We are also working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to identify and prepare sites for refugee camps in Pakistan. We continue to urge all neighbouring countries to adopt an open border policy and to allow those seeking refuge safe passage. Agencies are also attempting to provide assistance to those who remain on the Afghan side of the border.
	As the House is aware, our aims are to bring to justice those responsible for the events of 11 September, to dismantle the al-Qaeda network and to maintain humanitarian supplies to the people of Afghanistan. It is essential that we pursue all three aims at the same time. The humanitarian effort remains difficult for all the reasons that I have outlined. It is not the case that a pause in the bombing would solve these problems. Indeed, a pause would simply encourage the Taliban to harass humanitarian supplies more than at present to prevent further military action. We all understand why that call is being made, but it would be a grave error and we must not do that.
	All our objectives could be achieved much more rapidly if a new Government could be put in place in Afghanistan. Key to this process will be the central role of Ambassador Brahimi, Kofi Annan's newly appointed special representative for Afghanistan. We warmly welcome his appointment. Ambassador Brahimi is well respected and has considerable experience of the region. His is a difficult task and we stand ready to support him and his office in any way that we can and which he requests.
	There is also a need for the current coalition military campaign to be fully informed about the humanitarian effort and situation. Co-ordination mechanisms have been put in place, although closer co-ordination is still required. My Department continues to liaise closely with the United Nations and our United States and United Kingdom military colleagues at both headquarters and field level to ensure that there is a shared understanding of each others' objectives and to create safe areas as rapidly as possible.
	We also continue to urge other donors to turn pledges to the UN appeal quickly into actual payments. As against $600 million requested, more than $700 million has been pledged, but only $70 million has so far been received. Although immediate needs are covered, unless pledges are released soon, on-going operations will be hampered. We are working on that.
	We cannot resolve the humanitarian and political crisis in Afghanistan without attention to the regional context. Afghanistan's neighbours, particularly Pakistan and Iran, have generously provided for millions of Afghan refugees for many years. Pakistan's role is of central importance. President Musharraf's Government have given strong support to the international effort in Afghanistan. We should not underestimate the burden that that places on a country that is already playing host to 2 million refugees while undergoing painful economic reform to overcome the legacy of previous misgovernment.
	Last week, I had fruitful discussions with President Musharraf, Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz and other Ministers in Islamabad. The Government there remain strongly committed to the efforts of the coalition, and to economic reform and poverty reduction in Pakistan. They are also firmly committed to parliamentary elections by October 2002. There is a real prospect that that Government can achieve a much better future for Pakistan than it has experienced in recent years, but the country's economy has taken a knock as a consequence of the events of 11 September. Pakistan needs short-term help, debt relief and continuing support to maintain the long-term reform effort.
	I reaffirmed to the Government our commitment to a new International Monetary Fund/World Bank programme of budgetary support and to writing off remaining Government debt. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking urgently with his ministerial colleagues at how we might best collectively agree a debt alleviation package for Pakistan that underpins its reform programme.
	Afghanistan is a country that has suffered terribly for many years and faces a very severe humanitarian crises. The reason why bin Laden has his headquarters in Afghanistan is linked to the cause of the crises. Afghanistan is a failed state because of 20 years of warfare and the excesses of the Taliban regime. We must retain our resolve to bring those responsible for the events of 11 September to justice, to dismantle the al-Qaeda network and to maintain our humanitarian assistance.
	Through the efforts of Ambassador Brahimi, we must also support the establishment of a representative Government in Afghanistan who will work with the international community to resolve the immediate crisis and start the long haul of reconstructing Afghanistan and offering its people a better future. Our Government remain determined to do all that we can towards that end.

Caroline Spelman: I thank the right hon. Lady for coming to the House and addressing us on this very important issue. I received a copy of her statement while the House has been sitting. As we have just had International Development questions, I shall study it in more detail later.
	We were surprised to learn that the Secretary of State withdrew from an audience with the Select Committee on International Development yesterday. I understand that the date had been in her diary for a long time. Although it was originally suggested that there would be a general discussion of DFID's programme, it seemed reasonable for the Committee to request that the discussion focus on Afghanistan, especially as it decided on 16 October to conduct an inquiry into the crisis. The right hon. Lady was informed of the proposal well in advance of the final decision on 16 October. To respond by trying to limit questions on Afghanistan and ultimately to withdraw from the audience sets an unacceptable precedent for a Minister unilaterally to state the terms of such an interview. The whole House is worse off for the missed opportunity.
	A Select Committee can pursue a line of questioning on its specialist subject, whereas when a statement is made, hon. Members do not get the chance to ask supplementary questions. I understand that the Secretary of State returned on Friday from Pakistan, whence we have had a number of statements in the media during the week. Again, statements were made through the media at the weekend. Is there any good reason why the right hon. Lady's statement could not have been made at the first opportunity, on Monday? If it had been followed by a Select Committee appearance, Parliament would have been given a far better basis for informed debate.
	The fact that today's Order Paper contained no questions on Afghanistan for International Development questions—today's were tabled in July—made the need for the statement all the more urgent. We have had four debates on the crisis, but only one has been responded to in terms of international development. That has limited our opportunity to question the Government's policy on the humanitarian aspects of the crisis. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should let the hon. Lady put her case, and the Secretary of State will then answer. That is the best way.

Caroline Spelman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the last occasion we debated the crisis, a number of questions were asked about its humanitarian aspects to which the Minister who was present could not reply. I set out those questions in a letter to the right hon. Lady on 17 October. I hope that she will now answer some of them.
	The right hon. Lady will know that I have called for an appeal launched by President Bush asking every American child to donate a dollar to an Afghan child to be matched in this country. The appeal is to be administered by the American Red Cross. The British Red Cross is willing to administer such an appeal and has visited officials in the right hon. Lady's Department. I hope that she will use this opportunity to support that valuable initiative.
	There has been little unanimity about how much aid is required for the region. The key question is the amount of aid that is required and whether it can be delivered to where it is absolutely needed. The World Food Programme says that we need to get 50,000 tonnes of food into Afghanistan every month. However, a month from now, two regions of Afghanistan will be cut off by snow. Those two areas need 70,000 tonnes of food to be stockpiled within the next month. The right hon. Lady said that the regional stockpiles were adequate. I have quickly done my sums, however, and I find that those levels cannot be achieved at the rate of 1,300 tonnes a day. Christian Aid, which delivers the programme to some of the worst affected regions in central and north-eastern Afghanistan, estimates that 120,000 tonnes of food must get into those regions within the next four weeks. The sums simply do not add up. Even at the target rate of 1,700 tonnes, the amounts cannot be achieved. Does the right hon. Lady's acknowledge that that is not enough for the worst affected areas? Unless the World Food Programme and Christian Aid have got their figures wrong, the basic fact is that we are not getting sufficient food into those parts of the country.
	It is also necessary to question whether the food is reaching the people of Afghanistan. Despite claims from the World Food Programme that food is getting in, Oxfam and Christian Aid, which deliver the food and administer the process, have repeatedly said that they are running out of food. Who is right?
	A Christian Aid worker who has recently returned from Afghanistan has told me that a convoy left Quetta in Pakistan with 600 metric tonnes of food on board, but that by the time it reached Kabul there were only 200 metric tonnes left. In other words, two thirds of the entire convoy had been removed en route. It is no wonder that the aid agencies claim that not enough aid is getting through. Does the right hon. Lady acknowledge that a significant proportion of food aid—the statistical amount given—never reaches its destination?
	We heard reports that 7,000 tonnes of food had been seized from a UN warehouse last week, and that Médecins sans Frontières had reported that the Taliban had seized medical supplies from its compound. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State informed the House, on the basis of her recently refreshed knowledge of the situation on the ground, of just how obstructive the Taliban are being towards the delivery of aid. What does the right hon. Lady mean by "harassment"?
	Another question relating to delivery is whether the food is getting to the more remote regions of Afghanistan. A colossal number of people are on the move within the country. Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a real need to get food to people in their villages, so that they can remain where they have shelter and be in place to plant next year's crop?
	What is the Secretary of State's latest assessment of the number of people on the move? Does she accept the assessment of many aid agencies that many people are likely to die a lonely death in the mountains, not necessarily from starvation, but from illnesses generated by malnutrition? The chief problem facing the refugees is the collapse of the food distribution network. Will the Secretary of State inform the House of what progress has been made in restoring aid networks right into the interior of Afghanistan? I would like to say at this point that we share her view that a pause in the bombing would not help in that respect.
	Yesterday, the Select Committee interviewed representatives of the aid agencies, and concern was expressed about the lack of co-ordination on the ground. The Secretary of State has said that closer co-ordination is still required. Can Mr. Brahimi be urged to make that happen? Relations with the local Afghan NGOs have been vital to the aid distribution network—indeed, Christian Aid's programme has been successful because of its local partnerships. The right hon. Lady was right to describe those local NGOs as brave. They are brave indeed: they put their lives at risk to deliver food where it is really needed.
	I should like to raise the question of refugee camps, particularly as the Secretary of State has just returned from Pakistan. Is she satisfied that standards in the refugee camps are adequate? We have urged that the camps should meet the Sphere project's minimum standards for refugees. Was it her experience, when visiting the camps, that those standards were being met; and if not, what steps has she asked to be taken to ensure that they will be?
	The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reports great difficulties in the refugee camps. Many are not sited in ideal locations. In some, boreholes have had to be drilled through 400 m of granite to obtain water. What pressure can the Secretary of State bring to bear to ensure that refugee camps are better sited, so that practical targets such as the provision of water can be more easily achieved?
	A particular problem is that the border with Pakistan is intermittently open. Obviously the Secretary of State's visit to Pakistan failed to persuade the Government there to keep the border open, to put an end to the mixed signals being sent to people living in Afghanistan. Aid workers in yesterday's Select Committee meeting said that a potential disaster was looming on the border. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State commented on that.
	Given that the right hon. Lady has just returned from Pakistan, where a generous aid package was agreed, will she give an undertaking that the Chancellor will come to the House to give details of that debt alleviation package, and that such an announcement will be made here in Parliament?
	It was reported in yesterday's newspapers that the Taliban are going to run one of the refugee camps in Afghanistan. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that is true? She referred to agencies running the camps in Afghanistan, and I would like to know whether the Taliban are, in fact, running them.
	Will the Secretary of State also give an assurance that women and children will be treated fairly in the refugee camps? The present policy of allowing village elders to make decisions does not give them adequate protection. War always takes its toll on women and children, but they represent the future of a war-torn country.
	The Government share an enormous responsibility to get right the humanitarian aspect of the crisis; otherwise ordinary Afghan people will never believe us when we say that our war is not a war with them.

Clare Short: I regret that the hon. Lady has misled herself about the Select Committee. What happened is that it changed what it wanted to discuss at the meeting at short notice. It has been trying to visit Pakistan to go to the camps. The security advice is that its members could not be protected—we had a lot of trouble and during my visit I had endless phone calls about that. The Select Committee should do its job, but our first accountability is to Parliament, then the Select Committee probes. To try to get there instantly in a way that strains all our systems is not helpful or wise.
	We had a meeting with the new Select Committee fixed, including a memorandum on all the Department's future commitments, but there was a last-minute switch. It was impossible for me to get a memorandum prepared for the Select Committee without taking my staff off the work of improving the humanitarian performance in Afghanistan, and I decided that to do that would be wrong. The Select Committee should review the way in which it is demanding the attention of my Department in a way that would deflect us from the objective, which is to get better provision on the ground.
	I have seen the hon. Lady's letter. I do not know whether the House remembers, but in Kosovo I had difficulties, because the staff who do the work also have to serve the House of Commons. I have asked my hon. Friend the Under–Secretary to try to ensure that this time we do better. Obviously the public want replies, but it is difficult to manage the Department's resources. The staff are the best in the world, but they are enormously overworked.
	The hon. Lady has a number of misunderstandings. She does not seem to understand the nature of the crisis, the lack of information, how dangerous it all is, how nobody knows in detail what is going on inside Afghanistan or the nature of the Taliban regime. The regional stockpiles are outside Afghanistan. We also need stockpiles inside. If the hon. Lady reads the statement, she might understand that a little better.
	The hon. Lady quotes frequently some of what the NGOs here have said, but she should remember that they are using that material partially to call for a pause in the bombing. She might like to prevent the misuse of details of what is going on for that cause, which she says she does not support. How destructive are the Taliban? Enormously, in every single conceivable way. I thought everybody knew that.
	On the danger of a collapse of the network inside Afghanistan, the nightmare would be the same situation as existed after the Russians withdrew, when all the factions fought each other and there was chaos across the country. Should such a situation come about, we would have great difficulty bringing in humanitarian support, so everything needs to be done to avoid that. No one can absolutely guarantee success, but we can all unite in being determined to try to prevent such a situation from arising. That is our determination.
	I do not agree that there is a lack of co-ordination on the ground. The UN agencies are co-ordinating well, but the situation is enormously difficult. The camps have been there for 20 years, including the time when the hon. Lady's party was in power. On what happened in Pakistan with the refugees, after the campaign against the Russian presence in Afghanistan ended, the international community turned its back. Since our Government took power, we have provided support for the camps in Iran and Pakistan, but one reason why their Governments will not open the borders is that they took millions and millions last time, and then the international community abandoned them. I am trying to establish a guarantee to them that they will have support this time in order to get the borders open. We all need to work together on that.
	It would not be right to ask the Chancellor to come to Parliament to announce a package on debt, as Britain is one of Pakistan's smallest creditors. The largest are Japan, the United States of America, France, Germany and South Korea. The Government of Pakistan are making proposals for a highly concessionary debt rescheduling over perhaps 40 years, which would get their debt down. The United States is trying to be responsive. Of course, full details will be provided to the House. The United Kingdom will try to help, but it is not a leading creditor.
	I am not aware of the Taliban running camps, but we do not have information about everything that is going on inside Afghanistan. There is no doubt that women and children are suffering desperately. There is no doubt that the best way in which to deal with backwardness and extremism is to respect and empower women and educate girls. That is what we are trying to do in Pakistan and we will try to do it in Afghanistan as soon as we can.

Tony Worthington: There has been a great deal of talk about getting food into the areas that need it, but I am puzzled by the lack of any reference to water. One of Afghanistan's problems is that there has been a drought in the area for three years. I am told that in the border areas in Pakistan, particularly around the camp of Chaman where there has been trouble, it is necessary to drill 400 m through granite to obtain water, and that only the Pakistan agriculture service has strong enough drilling equipment. Given that in many places there could suddenly be thousands upon thousands of people, will the Secretary of State assure me that she is confident that services are in the area to ensure that water is available?

Clare Short: As my hon. Friend says, the drought that has affected Afghanistan has also affected neighbouring areas of Pakistan. Its worst effect has been on agricultural production—hence the lack of food—rather than directly on drinking water, but when we speak of food, that includes emergency supplies such as medicines and, often, water. In the strained communities in Pakistan and Iran that are hosting refugees, water is under strain, health care is under strain and education is under strain. We need to help the hosting communities as well as the refugees, so that they are willing to give more help themselves.
	I can assure my hon. Friend that we will do all in our power to improve conditions in the camps, and to secure a better welcome for refugees as they come out. Up to now, the refugee movement has been much less than the United Nations expected: it predicted another 1.5 million. Our information is that people are moving within Afghanistan back to their villages, rather than out to the borders. Perhaps those with more transport have already gone. We must take the help to where the people are, and we must do it as well as we can. We cannot control everything, but the international community and the Government are determined to do all in their power to ensure that humanitarian relief continues to get through to the people of Afghanistan.

Jenny Tonge: I welcome the statement, and thank the Secretary of State for releasing it a bit early so that I could see it. It helped to alleviate the boredom of Prime Minister's Question Time, I must say.
	Does the Secretary of State agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), the leader of my party, that it is essential to open up the borders of Pakistan and Iran? Does she further agree that not only must the multilateral debt of those countries be addressed—they must be helped with that debt—but they must be guaranteed the costs of looking after the refugees? I understand that the numbers are mounting, and that there are now some 3.5 million in Pakistan alone. Does the Secretary of State also agree that the stability of Pakistan will be crucial during the next few months?
	The right hon. Lady highlighted the difficulties of food distribution, which I have to accept, but I was delighted when she said that the World Food Programme was considering air drops of food into Afghanistan. Can we expect the World Food Programme to start—I quote myself here—bombing Afghanistan with food and aid in the very near future?
	The right hon. Lady mentioned the warnings that we have been receiving from aid agencies of impending famine in Afghanistan during the last six months—a long period—and we now know that there is a 50 per cent. shortfall. If we are to get enough food in before the winter snows, we must double our efforts, whatever the difficulties. Will the right hon. Lady reflect on the fact that aid agencies were criticised for not giving warning in time before the famine in southern Sudan in 1997? The Select Committee of which I was then a member conducted an investigation of the problem. Does the right hon. Lady think that her recent comments about the aid agencies went beyond the plain-speaking decency for which she is renowned?

Clare Short: I agree that it is highly desirable to open the borders. I have already explained how scarred Iran and Pakistan are by the lack of help from the international community for the millions of refugees whom they are already hosting. We are working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which has stockpiles in the region and emergency camps to deal with a big exodus of people. It is difficult because both Iran and Pakistan are saying, "Put the camps the other side of the border." We cannot do that safely. We have to keep working at it.
	As the hon. Lady says, we must undertake to Iran, Pakistan and other countries that we will provide for the refugees and that we will be there for the duration. The trouble is that the international community let them down badly before. Debt relief for Pakistan is crucial, as I have already said. The stability of Pakistan is also crucial. If that were to become a problem, we would be in great difficulties, but the Musharraf Government are not worried. Some of the pictures that we see on television exaggerate the extent of demonstrations, as television tends to do.
	Air drops are an expensive and difficult way of delivering food, as the hon. Lady knows from the experience of Sudan, so we must get as much in as we can. Not all the country is inaccessible when the snow comes; only some of it is. For the remote areas or the areas that become inaccessible, the World Food Programme is thinking about the possibility of air drops.
	When people talk about the aid agencies, there is a muddle. The monitoring of the risk of famine and the distribution of massive quantities of food are all done on our behalf by dedicated United Nations agencies, with people from all over the world devoting their lives to serving their fellow human beings. Our NGOs and other international NGOs often help with distribution on the ground and do an honourable job.
	I pick no fight with the aid agencies. The problem was that they issued their statement when I was in Pakistan, so wherever I went I was asked whether the humanitarian situation meant that we needed a pause in the bombing. It is not true that the bombing is the cause of our problem It is not true that, if we paused, we would help the people of Afghanistan. Indeed, I think that all humanitarian relief would then be harassed even more than it is now. It is a mistaken call. We all know why in their hearts good people hate bombing, but they are wrong to have made that call. I think that it is my duty to try to explain that as clearly as I can.

Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State just said that the media are exaggerating the extent of internal unrest in Pakistan in relation to the bombing, but just today we read in the newspapers of some firing from within Pakistan on US helicopters attempting to use a base in Pakistan. Recent polls have shown that 70 per cent. of Pakistani people are opposed to the bombing. Are we not taking a gamble that the military stage of the advance will be over sooner rather than later? If that gamble proves to be mistaken, not only will we see the instability in Pakistan across the region, but thousands of people will starve to death in the snows of Afghanistan.

Clare Short: All good people should regret war and bombing—I think that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) made that point in our debate on 8 October—but we must use force where it is necessary to destroy a greater evil. What happened in the United States of America could be repeated in all countries across the world, and the forces that are destroying the lives of the people of Afghanistan are harbouring that evil. Therefore, we have to keep our nerve and pursue all our objectives.
	Of course, we should minimise the bombing and move from the military phase to a political phase as soon as we can. We should all unite on that and not wobble. If we paused, there would be more mayhem and division in the world and more trouble for the people of Afghanistan. We must be clear-minded and carry through what we have to do.

Teddy Taylor: I have seen for myself, in a private visit, the absolute nightmare that has been caused by the Administration of Afghanistan, the horrendous numbers of refugees and the apparent disunity among the refugees. Is the Government's long-term intention to encourage the refugees to return to Afghanistan when things have improved? If it is not possible for them to return, will the Government and all the western powers agree to give continuing aid to Pakistan to cope with a genuine nightmare situation?

Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. A serious reform effort is under way in Pakistan. It has not only had local elections throughout the country but even elected some women, which is unprecedented in the country's history. It has also just completed its first IMF programme; it has had plenty of IMF programmes, but never before has it completed one. We have to help Pakistan with debt relief so that it can put more money into improving the lives of its people and growing its economy. On top of all that, it has more than 2 million refugees straining all its systems.
	The international community has not sufficiently supported Pakistan. I therefore agree with all the points made by the hon. Gentleman. Part of the purpose of my visit to Pakistan was to pledge the United Kingdom's continuing support. We are providing more support to Pakistan during the emergency, but our support will continue for its reform effort. This is a fantastically important opportunity for the people of Pakistan to have a better future and we must not allow the crisis to divert them.
	We must guarantee support for the refugees. Educated Afghans have left their country and can be found everywhere in the world, even in Ladywood. We are also working on a rehabilitation programme that is sharing ideas throughout the international community, so that we can begin the process of rehabilitation in Afghanistan as soon as possible. We want to enable all Afghans to go home, but we want particularly to encourage educated Afghans to go home, to help to reconstruct their country.

Glenda Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and for demonstrating yet again to the House and the country her quite remarkable grasp of the detail of an immensely complex situation, in marked contrast to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). Should ground forces be in Afghanistan when the proposed air drops of food are made, will those forces participate in that project? Delivery of the supplies will have to be accurately targeted, and it will be necessary to have friendly forces on the ground so that pilots know when they have reached the right areas. Additionally, as Afghan smugglers seem to have had inordinate success in getting people across borders, could they not be used to get food into Afghanistan?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is not being suggested that ground forces be used in the provision of humanitarian aid. One important international principle is that the UN and humanitarians should not become mixed up with the military, although the two groups should co-operate, share information and not get in one another's way. We hope that the military will be able increasingly to provide safe areas, so that humanitarian workers are able to return and the humanitarian effort can be expanded. Those are our goals.
	The US air drops have been more a matter of winning hearts and minds than of the provision of the massive amounts of food that are necessary. My hon. Friend asks whether Afghans themselves can take food into Afghanistan. The World Food Programme has started using Afghan truckers to take food into Afghanistan because they not only have their own trucks but know their country the best.
	New contracts are being signed with more Afghan truckers so that they can cover more parts of Afghanistan. When one group of truckers returns from Afghanistan, another group goes there after receiving news on events in the country, such as whether they are being harassed and whether the warehouses are holding up. That is our best source of information on whether the distribution system is working. Afghans are keeping the system going, very bravely and in the face of terrible harassment.

Tony Baldry: Does the Secretary of State understand that the Select Committee is unanimous in wanting to have a positive working relationship with her Department? After all, it is difficult enough to get international development on the political agenda at all without those of us who are concerned about the issue having a spat.
	I think that if the Secretary of State goes back to her private office she will find that she has been inadvertently misled. I wrote to her on behalf of the Select Committee saying that we did not expect a further memorandum, as we fully understood that her officials would be busy working. All we wanted was the Secretary of State, having returned from Pakistan, to come before the Select Committee to tell us what she had seen first-hand. I made that clear. I think that the whole House will have been disappointed and think it a pity that, although we heard the Secretary of State on the "Today" programme talking to the country as a whole, she did not feel able to explain all those matters directly to the Select Committee.
	Yesterday, the Select Committee took evidence from some of the non-governmental organisations, and it was quite clear that, for understandable policy reasons, they do not want humanitarian agencies to be caught up in the coalition military effort. Therefore, it seems that the concept of humanitarian corridors will not work. What is clearly needed is someone to help broker the humanitarian issue.
	Does the Secretary of State think that there is a role for Mr. Brahimi in that respect—not only in pursuing diplomatic issues but in helping the humanitarian effort by helping broker relations with the Taliban to allow food aid into Afghanistan? Unless there is work on the other side of the border, food aid, as well as refugees, will accumulate at the borders and little will get distributed.

Clare Short: I very much hope that I will have the same quality of relationship with the hon. Gentleman that I had with his predecessor as Chairman of the Select Committee. I enormously admire the contribution that his predecessor made to advancing thinking and agreement across the House on the significance of international development.
	I have not been misled. It took me four or five minutes from my bedroom in the British residence in Islamabad to get to the "Today" programme. I do not agree that it is good practice to appear before a Select Committee without a memorandum, because all the figures—on supplies and so on—are crucial. My immediate accountability is to the House, and while I was in Pakistan I tried to get the House authorities to agree to a statement. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I tried to have an informal meeting with the Select Committee. I am going to Africa tonight. We cannot ignore Africa, because that would make it feel neglected. My Department, which is fairly small, is working flat out. We will account to the Select Committee in every way that we can. This is an enormously serious emergency, and we must use our resources as best we can.
	I welcome the meeting with the Select Committee, but the last-minute switch to the suggestion that we should meet without a memorandum was wrong. My immediate accountability is to the House, and that can be probed by the Select Committee. I promise full co-operation. I made the decision because I thought that it was the right way to deploy the resources of my Department, and I still think so.

Tom Clarke: As most people would agree, my right hon. Friend has been proactive in handling her portfolio. Does she agree that the Prime Minister was positive and far-sighted this afternoon, when he criticised the past failures of the west to take opportunities to address the reconstruction of Afghanistan? Would she take as a model northern Iraq, where many hon. Members have witnessed the complete transformation, in a matter of years, of the absolute despair of the Kurds?
	Does she agree that the United Nations agencies, NGOs and others made their contribution to that dream being realised, and that it is not impossible to repeat that in Afghanistan? Will she work with them and with the new ambassador, whom she welcomed this afternoon, to ensure that we play our part in seeking to repeat in Afghanistan what has been achieved in northern Iraq?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that the neglect of Afghanistan has allowed it to become a failed state with the problem of housing al-Qaeda. The whole world should learn from the lessons of Afghanistan and other countries.
	The model should be smaller countries such as East Timor and Kosovo, which, before their reconstruction, had had no state institutions. That reconstruction was led by the UN. The job in Afghanistan will be much bigger, because it is a poorer and bigger country, but I am sure that it can be done. As I said earlier, plans are in place.
	Great things have been achieved in northern Iraq, but that is part of a country under a no-fly zone, so it is a complex example on which to build. We must commit, in detail and in the long term, to the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and that is the commitment that the international community has made. Ambassador Brahimi will lead; we and others are determined to follow. The World Bank is preparing to do so. We must get the whole international system ready to move, and we will.

Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Lady recognise that there is widespread support for her view that military action is compatible with the delivery of humanitarian supplies? Does she further recognise that there is considerable support for the view that a temporary cessation of military action—bombing or otherwise—would be a grave error?

Clare Short: I do agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As I have said, a pause would lead only to more harassment of humanitarian staff. It would be a disaster, and an invitation to those who wanted to resist the coalition to resist the humanitarian supplies. However, many of our fellow citizens and people across the world are upset at the thought of hungry people being in a country where bombing is taking place, and I respect their compassion and concern. It is our duty to bring the conflict to an end as well as possible, to secure our objectives and to minimise civilian casualties. We must also get the political track moving as rapidly as possible and establish zones of peace in which the humanitarian effort can be improved. I agree that it is an error to call for a pause, but I respect the reasons that prompt people to make that call. We must respond as best we can.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: My right hon. Friend will be aware that The Times carried a report this morning stating that land mines were being dropped in Afghanistan. I also understand that it is accepted now that delayed-action cluster bombs have already been dropped there. Given that such ordnance now kills more than 300 children a year in Kosovo, will my right hon. Friend say what effect these armaments will have on the way in which a humanitarian programme can be carried out?

Clare Short: I am not aware of the report to which my hon. and learned Friend refers. I have not read a newspaper for a considerable period of time, as that is not a priority in situations such as this. I am certain that land mines are not being dropped, but Afghanistan is littered with land mines—because there have been 20 years of war, and because land mines are such cheap weapons. On top of all the other suffering of the people of Afghanistan, there is therefore massive disability in that poor benighted country resulting from wounds and injuries caused by land mines.
	As I said to my hon. and learned Friend at another meeting earlier, I think that I have read reports—non-newspaper reports, if I can put it like that—of some use of cluster bombs. I do not think that they have been used much, and I promise to look into the matter and get back to my hon. and learned Friend. I shall report that response to the House. There is a land mine problem in Afghanistan, but they are not being dropped. They are there already, I regret to say.

Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Secretary of State tell the House how dropping cluster bombs and Gator land mines will assist humanitarian efforts in any way? That can never be right.
	I have a high regard for the right hon. Lady, but will she tell the House whether it will be possible at some time to publish a report about what is happening with the humanitarian effort, and what is being undertaken? Many hon. Members would like to know the direction of the effort. That is not intended as a critical question, as I know that the Secretary of State is working hard on the matter. However, it is awful that humanitarian aid is being provided at the same time as there is indiscriminate use of land mines.

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman was not listening. Land mines are not being used, but the country of Afghanistan is littered with land mines because of 20 years of civil war. In a civil war, land mines are cheap weapons and people use them endlessly. Afghanistan has an enormous land-mine problem from the past. No one is using land mines now—unless the Taliban are, which is possible. What I mean is that no one that belongs to the coalition is using land mines.
	I cannot speak with authority about cluster bombs. I think that I read a report that stated that some use had been made of them, but I think that that use has been limited. I promise to find out and report properly. I do absolutely undertake to begin publishing regular reports on the humanitarian situation as soon as possible. We need that information in the House, and across the world. People want to know that we really mean it when it comes to aid, and that help is being got to people.
	I was talking to Mark Malloch-Brown, the head of the United Nations Development Programme, who has co-ordinating responsibility in the UN in this matter. We get different figures from different parts of the system, because supply stops and starts or goes up or down. Averages based on figures for a month, a week or a day result in different figures, with the result that people start not to believe what we say. We need to tidy up the process and make it honest and clear. We need regular reports, and I promise to do my best to bring that about.

John Battle: I assure my right hon. Friend that there is a tremendous fund of good will, nationally and internationally, behind her efforts to tackle the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. She should not be expected to tackle single-handed a crisis that has been in the making for months and years, and ignored by the international community and the media.
	I have a specific question for my right hon. Friend. May I urge her, quietly and gently, to get away from the language and strategy of random air drops, from a great height, of inappropriate aid? Even in these tremendously difficult circumstances, would not it be better to adopt a clearer strategy of targeted air lifts that are received on the ground and distributed according to need? Air lifts are what are needed, not air drops.

Clare Short: There is no doubt that this crisis was there already. I have said before that professionals in my Department who have worked in crises like these across the world thought before 11 September that Afghanistan might be heading towards a famine. It has received very little international attention and there has been very little willingness to pledge resources. We have been increasing our pledges, but United Kingdom citizens have been unable to work safely in Afghanistan for a long time, so it has also been difficult us to make efforts beyond the refugees. Not many people seem to appreciate that there was a crisis in the region before, and that shows how fickle attention is to such matters.
	Air drops are always the least best option because they are so expensive. Some 90 per cent. of the costs of emergency relief to Sudan go on air drop costs rather than on what is provided for the people, so trucking is extremely important for laying down stocks, filling up warehouses and building more of them. Even if some food is diverted, we have to keep pumping it into the country because then at least the price will come down and there will not be a famine. We cannot afford to be fussy and not get the food into the country. The United States stuff is about hearts and minds—they are sending meals, with peanut butter, crackers and jam. That is fair enough, but it is not humanitarian relief.
	The welfare programme is looking at very remote and difficult areas. If we can get some areas of the country in peaceful enclaves under a new Afghan Government, we can really start to supply humanitarian relief. We hope that we will be able to do that as soon as possible.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Secretary of State has played a commendable part in the international aid effort in getting in aid from Pakistan, whose border is particularly difficult. She mentioned Uzbekistan; we know that the Americans have established a forward base in the north-west of the country, where presumably they have secure corridors into that base. Would it be possible to co-ordinate with the military authorities, using those secure corridors, and consider using the front-line states on the north-east and north-west to get aid to the dreadful situation in Afghanistan, as well as concentrating on Pakistan?

Clare Short: As I have said before, the military and humanitarian sides need to know what the other is doing and not get in each other's way. Indeed, the military can assist by creating safe areas, but it must not muddle the situation. Humanitarian aid must go to anyone, whatever the side, wherever they are; it must never be used as a weapon in military action.
	As I said in my statement, the welfare programme is looking at Tajikistan and Uzbekistan with regard to trucking. It is not as simple as using the corridor. We have to get supplies into the country; UN staff have to go in to the country, and they have to be housed and organised. However, we are looking at the possibility. There should be co-operation with the military side, but it should not control humanitarian supplies. If the military can create safe zones, that is the beginning of the end of the problem. That is the job for the military.

Gordon Prentice: I should like to return to the central issue of the closed border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. In my right hon. Friend's discussions with General Musharraf, did he give her any indication that he would be prepared to open the border if the coalition or the wider international community were prepared to underwrite the costs?

Clare Short: That is a very important question, and my hon. Friend is right to come back to it. The formal position of the Government of Pakistan and, I understand, of Iran, is that the border is closed and there are millions of refugees. Our country complains, yet we are much better off and we have nothing like the same numbers of refugees. People are saying, "Why don't you provide camps just on the other side of the border?", but that offends humanitarian principles. In practice, 100 camps are being prepared in Pakistan in case of an exodus because of great hunger or the consequence of fighting. So although they are saying no, they are preparing camps, and that is a hopeful sign.
	Quite large numbers of people are going across the mountains to Pakistan. While I was there, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees negotiated with Pakistan's Government that people going to live in families and in communities can be provided with food aid so that they can cope. However, there is a hold-up on the border going into Baluchistan. People are coming from the Kandahar area, which is the Taliban stronghold. There has been a lot of fighting so, unsurprisingly, there are large movements of people. We must get them over and settled. We must do more. I am trying my best and I will try harder.

Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State is right to say that we should not be mixing military and humanitarian activities. Does she agree, however, that British and American forces have traditionally been first to help those suffering from starvation? May I press her on the open frontier? Surely it is not simply a question of Pakistan being frightened of a large influx of people from Afghanistan with which it cannot cope. As we have experienced with our open frontiers, is there not also the possibility that they could allow undesirables to flock in and add to the upheaval in Pakistan rather than helping to solve the Afghanistan situation?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right. Pakistan is worried about numbers. It has had 2 million refugees for the best part of 20 years, which is putting a strain on communities, but it is worried about armed groups causing destabilisation. We all know the example of Rwanda, where those responsible for the genocide led the exodus and controlled the camps. They were provided with humanitarian relief by the international system, so the leaders of the genocide were strengthened by the humanitarian effort. Such examples do not help us and that is a part of the concern in Pakistan. None the less, we cannot have people backing up at the border. We have to guarantee to help provide all the resources and then ask for the opening of the borders, as hon. Members have said, but we also have to check that there are not military incursions and attempts to destabilise Pakistan.

Mike Gapes: Does the Secretary of State agree that, given that Ramadan begins in three weeks and that the winter will come around the same time in Afghanistan and will be very harsh, calls for us to stop the air action are misguided and could play into the hands of the Taliban regime and Osama bin Laden and his network, who would use the three weeks available to regroup, reorganise and hide, making it impossible for us to liberate Afghanistan from the misogynist terrorists of the Taliban and allow the United Front, the Northern Alliance to make gains and a new government to be established in large parts of the country?

Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend but, as I told the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), many of our fellow citizens are calling for a pause in the bombing not for those reasons but because they want relief to be brought in. We do not have clear reports of what is going on in Afghanistan. Many people imagine far more bombing than is taking place in that vast country. I agree, but we have to get more information to people. We have to get our citizens to think about my hon. Friend's point. I am sure that we can win the argument. It is important that everyone in the House takes a part in reassuring our population that we are doing what we can and that we are bringing in the humanitarian relief so that we keep our people united behind the action and well informed.

Andrew Robathan: While I too was sorry not to see the Secretary of State in the Select Committee on International Development yesterday, I welcome her obvious determination to help the humanitarian situation in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the surrounding region. The right hon. Lady mentioned the refugee camps in the Congo outside Rwanda, in particular those around Goma. The Select Committee visited a camp outside Islamabad in 1999, which was run essentially as a part of Afghanistan. The women were segregated, there was no education for them and it was difficult to get health care to women or children. Indeed, we hear that extremist madrasas are run in some of the camps and that they may prove to be a breeding ground for extremist terrorists. Will the Secretary of State speak with UNHCR, or whoever is running the camps, to ensure that they are open, that there is no possibility of breeding further terrorism and that all people there—be they male or female—get a decent opportunity to live?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman makes some important points. I met the UNHCR when I was in Islamabad. It is trying to upgrade the camps. There has been a period of neglect and decline. In the North-West Frontier province, where there has been much movement in both directions, fundamentalism and extremism have spread because of the situation in Afghanistan, the drought and the poverty. I met with Ministers there who were engaging in a programme of development. As the Education Minister of that province said, the way to combat extremism and backwardness is by educating girls. We are going to partner that province, which is right on the border and has a tribal area, to progress that sort of development. That is what we need in the new Afghanistan—real education. Again, as one of the Ministers in the new Pakistan Government said, we have lost 20 years. There should have been 20 years of education in Afghanistan, but instead there has been a move backwards. We must never let that happen again.

Mike O'Brien: Will my right hon. Friend convey to her officials our thanks for the hard work that they are putting in to ensure that food aid gets through to the refugees? Does she agree that a bombing pause—however desirable some people think it would be—would not only allow the Taliban to regroup, perhaps prolonging the war and creating more refugees, as she has pointed out; it would also, by prolonging the war, create a situation in which it would be more difficult for the aid agencies to get into Afghanistan and tackle the long-term problems that so desperately need to be resolved there?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thanks to my officials. My Department has superb officials. The relevant unit goes to world crisis after world crisis, dropping everything when something happens and working all the hours that God sends. They are great people and I am sure that the whole House will congratulate them on their work. They are admired throughout the world as they are some of the best at this work. Britain is one of the fastest countries to move resources around the world. I am very proud of my officials and we should all be grateful to them.
	I agree with my hon. Friend's point about the likely effect of a pause and the likely prolongation of the war. We must try to achieve our objectives so that military action is as short as possible. We must keep the humanitarian action going and get the political track moving. Highly informed people hold the view that many of the armed factions in Afghanistan would switch sides if there was the prospect of a better Government, then we could start bringing the thing to a rapid end. That is the most desirable thing for the people of Afghanistan and the world. That is what we must work at.

Vincent Cable: What is the moral authority for the coalition members' demand that Pakistan and Iran should open their frontiers when they themselves maintain draconian controls on those fleeing conflict, including that in Afghanistan? In particular, will the Secretary of State condemn the hypocrisy of the Australian authorities, and will she ensure that any Afghan refugees reaching this country are welcomed and helped?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We lecture Pakistan which, as I said earlier, is massively poorer than our country and has many, many more refugees in proportion to its population, but is being asked to host perhaps a further 1.5 million. The communities—in the North-West Frontier province and so on—who are being asked to host those refugees are extremely poor and are affected by the drought.
	There are Afghan refugees in the UK and, obviously, their case for being genuine refugees is overwhelmingly strong. The tragedy is that so many of them—like some in Ladywood—are educated Afghans. In situations such as this, when education in a country is limited, it is difficult for educated people to remain there; they tend to flee and are scattered throughout the world. We must welcome and care for them, but we have to help them to go back and rebuild their country because Afghanistan will need them.

Tam Dalyell: Following the questions about land mines and cluster bombs put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), did we not hear the Secretary of State herself say that every ordnance and target had to be run before the Law Officers? Given the circumstances of her answer, which I quite understand, would it not be right that the House—perhaps tomorrow—should be given a statement from the Solicitor-General, representing the Law Officers, clearing up exactly what is happening in relation to land mines and their generic relation, cluster bombs? Should there not be a statement from the Solicitor-General to the House tomorrow morning?

Clare Short: I think I should share my problem with the House. In response to a question from my hon. Friend, the Prime Minister said that all the targets were looked at by our Law Officers. I repeated that on the famous "Today" programme interview that was referred to earlier and received a letter saying that I was not supposed to say that the Law Officers scrutinise the targets. I do not know why.
	Statements are a matter for the Speaker. Of course, the House must remember that the UK is only a small part of the military operation. Because of the coverage in our media, people imagine that we are a massive part of that operation. Obviously, our Government and Law Officers are responsible for what our Government do but not for the actions of the US Government and others who will join the coalition. I leave the House with my dilemma—perhaps I shall get another letter.

John Wilkinson: May I commend the Secretary of State for her visit to a zone of extreme instability and real crisis and for the realism of her report to the House? However, may I press her even more strongly on the need to ensure the stability of Pakistan, which she herself has emphasised? If there were a further wholesale migration of people into Pakistan, Pakistan's provincial, racial and ideological stability could be called into question. As the Musharraf Government have done well in exceptionally difficult circumstances, is it not time that Pakistan was readmitted to full membership of the Commonwealth and all its councils?

Clare Short: I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman's point. As yet, Pakistan is in good shape but it needs continuing support as it has taken an enormous economic hit on its exports. The cost of shipping, air freight and insurance have all gone up, so it needs short-term help to keep its reform effort going, as well as help with any refugees.
	The Musharraf Government provided a route map to the last meeting of the Commonwealth committee that monitors progress and they firmly promised parliamentary elections by, I think, October next year as their own court required. They are absolutely committed to that.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Pakistan needs to be protected and helped with the refugees that it is hosting, and a short, rather than a long, military campaign would help it too. We must do our best so that we obtain an outcome that is best for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Northern Ireland

John Reid: Mr. Speaker, with permission, I will make a statement about developments in Northern Ireland. It is the statement I have often been told I would never be able to make to the House.
	Yesterday, the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported that it had witnessed an event—which it regarded as significant—in which the IRA had put a quantity of arms beyond use. The materiel in question had included arms, ammunitions and explosives. The commission was satisfied that the arms in question had been dealt with in accordance with the scheme and regulations. In other words, the IRA's act constituted an act of decommissioning under the commission's statutory remit.
	The word "historic" tends to be over-used about the Northern Ireland political process. There have been so many twists and turns, so many moments of optimism and so many setbacks along the way. But yesterday's move by the IRA is, in my view, unprecedented and genuinely historic. I believe that it takes the peace process on to a new political level.
	That has been recognised in Northern Ireland itself. Rarely has the whole community been so united. As the Belfast Newsletter said this morning,
	"for most people, Ulster this morning seems a more hopeful place in which space created by the IRA's unprecedented move will be seized by those with political vision and courage".
	From another perspective, the Irish Times said that
	"a rubicon has been crossed . . . a historic milestone has been passed. It is an affirmation by the republican movement—in tangible terms—that it cannot operate in both the paramilitary and political worlds".
	Let us recall why we got here. We got here through a widespread recognition—after 30 years of death and pain and misery—of the futility of violence. That was the spur and its memory should remain the spur to all of us.
	Let us remember also just how far we have come in the past four years. There have been major constitutional changes, including the establishment of the principle of consent and the ending of Ireland's territorial claim to Northern Ireland. The new institutional architecture, which has been shown to work, can and must be revived by yesterday's historic move. The Human Rights and Equality Commissions have been set up and are already hard at work. After much debate, an unprecedented new beginning to policing, with cross-community support, has been made. None of those has reached full fruition, but we were told that all of them were impossible to accomplish. Yesterday, another seemingly impossible vision became a reality.
	This is the culmination of efforts by many people over many years, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach in the Irish Government, John Major, successive United States Administrations, the republican leadership, which has shown itself to have the vision and confidence to bring an armed movement to the point of ceasefire, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the party that he leads, and the smaller pro- agreement parties.
	I also pay tribute—I hope it is not embarrassing—to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and his colleagues. Were it not for his persistence, willingness to take risks and sheer courage under attack, it is no exaggeration to say that yesterday's events are unlikely to have happened. It is a vivid illustration of the power of engagement and the powerlessness of detachment. It is those who have taken risks for peace who have achieved this progress, not those who have doubted from the sidelines. Of course, the whole House will want to join me in thanking General John de Chastelain and his colleagues. They have shown endless patience and dignity. The best thanks that we can give them is to let them get on with the task that they have been asked to discharge.
	Yesterday's events opened up opportunities, which we need to seize, and also challenges, which we need to face in three areas. First, the political institutions that are the democratic core of the Belfast agreement—the Assembly, the Executive, the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council—should now be restored to full operation as quickly as possible, and should operate in a stable and uninterrupted way. The decision of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party earlier today to put Ministers back into government is a helpful step in creating a new dynamic.
	Secondly, we need to press on with the implementation of the Good Friday agreement in all its aspects. I have placed in the Library of the House the Government's fuller response to the Decommissioning Commission's report. I should mention in particular that we will complete the implementation of the Patten report, including the review of the new arrangements to which we are already committed and the introduction of legislation to amend the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 to reflect more fully the Patten recommendations.
	We intend shortly to publish an implementation plan for the criminal justice review and to draft legislation to be introduced during the current Session. We will undertake a progressive rolling programme of security normalisation, reducing levels of troops and installations in Northern Ireland as the security situation improves. Our aim is to secure as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements. That is the task that now confronts us in the period ahead.
	I can today announce a step in that direction. The IRA's action in putting weapons beyond use has wide political significance. It also, in itself, makes a contribution to the improvement that we all want to see in the security situation.
	In the immediate aftermath of yesterday's event, I have discussed the situation with my security advisers, including the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland. There is, of course, a significant continuing threat from republican and loyalist dissidents. Notwithstanding that, the Chief Constable confirms that yesterday's developments represent a real improvement.
	We therefore intend, as an immediate response to yesterday's development, to demolish the observation tower on Sturgan mountain in South Armagh; work on this has already started today. We will demolish one of the observation towers on Camlough mountain in South Armagh; work on this is starting today. In addition, we will demolish the supersangar at Newtownhamilton police station adjacent to the helicopter landing site; work on that will begin tomorrow. We will also demolish the Magherafelt army base; work on that will begin tomorrow. All of this done on the advice of a Chief Constable whose integrity and knowledge of these matters is unsurpassed in the House.
	There is a third priority: all paramilitary groups should now play their part in building on yesterday's progress. That is not just about decommissioning. When small children cannot go to school without being terrorised, or innocent civilians cannot sleep in their bed without fear of being bombed, the scale of the challenge still confronting us is evident. Some of the loyalist organisations have played a crucial part in the peace process. I ask them to ask themselves what they can do now to move the process forward. Whatever else happens, there must be an end to the mindless sectarian violence of recent weeks.
	There are other difficult legacies of the past. The early release scheme was, I know, one of the most painful and contentious aspects of the agreement. All qualifying prisoners have now been released. We and the Irish Government have now accepted that it would be a natural development of that scheme for outstanding prosecutions and extradition proceedings for offences committed before 10 April 1998 not to be pursued against supporters of organisations now on ceasefire and contributing to the peace process. Both Governments have agreed to take such steps as are necessary to resolve the issue as soon as possible, and in any event by March 2002.
	Piece by piece the Belfast agreement is taking shape. As the Prime Minister said last night, we are a long way from completing our journey. There will, no doubt, be obstacles ahead, but at a time when the world is grappling with the effects of the most evil terrorism and we see in the middle east the awful consequences when political dialogue breaks down and opportunities are missed, I can tell the House that the political process in Northern Ireland is alive and moving forward. To sustain that, we will require hard work, steady nerves and the continued ability on all sides to reach out and make difficult compromises. The Government are ready and eager to play their part in doing that.

Quentin Davies: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving me an advance copy of his statement, which I much appreciate.
	This is unambiguously good news for the people of Northern Ireland. I endorse utterly the right hon. Gentleman's tributes to all those whose efforts have brought about today's result. However, I should like to give nuance to some of his remarks. It is a fact that many people in Northern Ireland in both communities have, reasonably and rightly, immediately welcomed the excellent news. But it is not entirely surprising, given the suffering and horrors of the last 30 years, that a significant number have reacted to the news with cynicism and scepticism. I think that they are wrong to take that view, and hope and pray that they will come to change their mind. However, we in the House must all make an effort to consider the concerns and feelings of all the people of Northern Ireland in both communities.
	Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that what has happened is the first vital step in a process that must be completed and must continue until all the arms in the hands of former terrorists have been decommissioned? Does he agree that the next move must come from the so-called loyalist paramilitaries? Does he agree that in the vital continuing process of decommissioning no one will want to make unilateral or unreciprocated concessions? I hope that he himself will not make any such concessions. On the other hand, we do not want a crisis in the institutions—another stand-off—every time a new act of decommissioning needs to be made.
	Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree therefore that it would be highly desirable to negotiate some kind of co-ordinated and programmed process leading to full decommissioning? Does he consider that General de Chastelain's remit is sufficient to allow him to negotiate such a package? If not, will he consider other ways of achieving the same objective? Will he now give the House a clear answer to the question to which the Prime Minister did not give a clear answer when he was asked it earlier today, both by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)? What happens—we hope that this is not the case—if decommissioning is not completed by February next year when General de Chastelain's remit runs out? It is only common sense to make contingency plans for that eventuality. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that that has been done, even if he does not want to tell us what those plans are?
	Turning to a matter that will be of considerable concern to many in the House and outside, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his reference to abandoning
	"outstanding prosecutions and extradition proceedings"
	amounts to the promise of an amnesty for people who are now on the run? Does he accept that there was no mention of an amnesty in the Belfast agreement and no such proceeding was envisaged at that time? Does he accept that the House has never had an opportunity to consider such an eventuality? Is he convinced that such an amnesty is consistent with United Nations conventions?
	I now come to another vital point that was touched on, but no more than that, earlier this afternoon. Can we have an explicit and unqualified assurance from the right hon. Gentleman—the Prime Minister was neither explicit nor unqualified on this subject this afternoon—that there will be no question of any reduction in police numbers, troop numbers and their equipment and support below the levels that the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding believe necessary to fulfil adequately the tasks that they have been given? I would very much appreciate a clear and explicit assurance on that vital matter.
	Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a splendid opportunity for all those involved in lesser degrees of confrontation in Northern Ireland, including aggressive demonstrations such as stone throwing, to make a contribution to de-escalating tensions and begin to heal the hatred that exists? In that context, will the right hon. Gentleman join me in appealing to all community leaders in north Belfast to take advantage of the present conjuncture to begin to negotiate an end to the harassment of parents and children at the Holy Cross school, and to the difficulties that Protestants have recently encountered in neighbouring Catholic streets?

John Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for yesterday's news. Any hon. Member, however healthily sceptical, who did not welcome yesterday's move forward would be regarded by the entire House as rather churlish. The hon. Gentleman's fulsome welcome did not detract from the legitimate questions that he asked.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether I understood the scepticism and the cynicism that will exist in certain quarters. There is indeed a degree of scepticism, which is not unuseful. After so many decades of pain on all sides, it is healthy for people to be sceptical. Cynicism is somewhat different. It is our job to illustrate to those who are dominated by cynicism that politics can work. Recognition of the futility of many long years of trying to solve problems by violent means is increasingly reinforced by making political progress and thereby defeating cynicism. Nevertheless, I understand how painful and how difficult many of the decisions are to people in Northern Ireland.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the move is the first step in a process that must extend wider and longer. It is part of a process that will take many years to bear fruit. For example, in the general political process, we have embarked on policing, but it is just a beginning. No one thinks that we will have attained the object of that exercise within a short period. When we form the new democratic institutions, they will take a considerable time to become stabilised. New powers—criminal justice and so on—should perhaps be passed down in due course to the new institutions. That will take time, and the same applies to all other aspects of the agreement.
	It is understandable that such things, including the resolution of the arms issue, take time. I wish that it had come about earlier; that would have been more helpful, but now we can truthfully say that we have begun the implementation of all aspects of the Good Friday agreement.
	I agree that we must ask the loyalists to ask themselves what they can do. There are those who wear the banner of loyalism and demean the idea of allegiance to any country, not just to the United Kingdom. Gangsterism, racketeering and thuggery do not always appear on the stage carrying a banner with the words, "Gangsterism, racketeering and thuggery." However, there are other loyalists who have played an extremely constructive part in the process.
	I would want not to damn everyone because of some of the people who have been engaged in what we have seen. I hear from them the response, "We may not be prepared to do what the IRA has done." I encourage them to tell us not what they cannot do at this stage, but what they think they can do. Any movement, particularly a movement away from the murderous bomb campaign that has been taking place, would be another part of the dynamic of changing the recent vicious circle.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about unreciprocated concessions. There are two parts to that. Many of the things that we are doing are not concessions. Human rights protection and equality legislation are not concessions but the building blocks of a civilised society. However, if the hon. Gentleman is asking whether everyone who is part of the process expects that we should be able to move all the elements and that everyone should gain from that, I agree.
	That is sensible. It does not mean that we should allow timidity to become the byword. As we build trust, which has been sadly lacking, perhaps we should all contemplate whether we could move just a little further politically than we might have done hitherto. Yes, to moving forward together.
	I applaud General de Chastelain and his commission. More than any, they have suffered the brunt of cynicism and sneering over the years. I thank them on behalf of the whole House and everyone in Northern Ireland—I am sure that I speak also on behalf of the two Governments and Ireland as a whole—for their endurance in staying there. They have obtained a discretion, an integrity and an independence that are vital to the process.
	The hon. Gentleman repeated a question that is perhaps based on a misunderstanding and which he said my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not answer to his satisfaction. The remit of the de Chastelain commission does not finish in February. Its remit stems from the two Governments themselves. What finishes in February is the legislative framework that enables decommissioning to take place. That is an important distinction. General de Chastelain will therefore remain for as long as the two Governments wish him to do so.
	It is important for paramilitary groups to build on what happened yesterday and for that to happen across the board, laterally and as part of a forward-moving process. There are many tricky problems, but it is my firm belief that the trickiest of all—moving from conflict to peace and from people who were previously engaged in terrorism to people who say that they now want to adopt exclusively peaceful means—is immensely helped by the independence of John de Chastelain and the integrity that he holds. I think, therefore, that it is wise for us to say that we will take his advice on these matters as the process continues and see what he would prefer to have happened.
	The hon. Gentleman then turned to the resolution of issues that arise from the early release of prisoners and those who are on the run. He referred to an amnesty. It is important to recognise that the people to whom he referred do not fall into a single category. For instance, there are people on the run of whom the security forces have never heard, those about whom they have no evidence or suspicion and people who have served longer in prison than they would have done if they had stayed there and obtained early release. There are others against whom there may be evidence for long-outstanding charges. It is precisely because of that difficulty that we have expressed the intent to resolve the issue, but have not yet decided on the method that will be deployed. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that when we make that decision, the House will be the first to know and we will bring our proposals before it. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would allow us to do otherwise.
	The hon. Gentleman's other question—I am sorry for answering his questions with such fulness, but he asked them with sincerity and integrity and it is worth answering them all—was whether we take and heed advice on security matters. Of course, that goes without saying. There is still a threat out there. There are people who, unlike the IRA, which is moving in a direction that we all applaud, have stayed entrenched. Some of them are republicans and some are loyalists. We will combat them in the illegality and malice of what they are doing as resolutely as we will pursue peace with those who wish to work in partnership with us towards it. However, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we must not allow them to act as a veto on the rest of the process because of their commitment to using violence.
	I hope that I have answered most of the hon. Gentleman's questions. On north Belfast, despite all the difficulties, efforts are being made behind the scenes and many community leaders are trying to resolve a very difficult situation. I merely say this to the people who are protesting there: first, whatever they may think their grievances are, we are willing to address them. They do not have to take the action that they are taking. Secondly, and perhaps more important, to hold young children to ransom as they put forward their demands is not only wrong and should be stopped, but does nothing to advance their case anywhere in Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom or internationally.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I would like to say that the House obviously knows that this is a very important statement, and I want to call as many hon. Members as possible. Short questions and, of course, short answers, will be of great assistance.

Eddie McGrady: On behalf of the people whom I represent, I would like to thank the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister, the Northern Ireland Office Ministers, their predecessors and their counterparts in the Government of the Republic of Ireland for being part of the process that has brought us to this point today.
	This is an historic event. It is the first time in a century that Irish republicanism has yielded one single weapon or bullet, and that is significant. Let us not question the motivation behind the event, but rather accept the event as the gateway to the future that has been created. I hope that the Secretary of State will agree that this gateway will, perhaps, produce a gun-free society in Northern Ireland, and a society free of political violence.
	Does the Secretary of State agree that all of us in the House and in Northern Ireland need to encourage the loyalist paramilitaries to see that they have no cause to retain their weapons, and that they can now confidently disarm and leave the protection of any community to the proper security forces in Northern Ireland? Does he also agree that it is important that the dissident republican movements adopt and subscribe to the will of the people of Ireland that this should happen? The intractable problem of the Good Friday agreement and decommissioning is the keystone to our new future.
	The other matters to which the Secretary of State has referred—policing, demilitarisation—are moving along, and we hope to hear of the reinstitution on a permanent basis of the institutions. I am sure that the Secretary of State will welcome the statement made in the House today by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that his Ministers have been reinstated in their positions of ministerial responsibility today. I would like to hear the leader of the Democratic Unionist party say that his Ministers will also be restored, and that all four of the coalition parties will at long last work together as an Executive in this Administration of Northern Ireland and in the north-south bodies.
	Does the Secretary of State also agree that the real victors, the real benefactors, of this process—which I hope will now move rapidly to its culmination—are the ordinary men and women and their leaders who have personally endured violence and the threat of violence over the years, and who have at all times stood by their abhorrence of violence and their determination to see the democratic process victorious in the end?

Mr. Speaker: When I asked for short questions, I was expecting them to be shorter than that.

John Reid: That was short by Northern Ireland standards. I will attempt to be even more brief.
	I thank my hon. Friend for his tribute, his thanks and his accolade to me. I can assure him that the people whom I mentioned earlier are much more important; I just happened to be around when this happened. That is also a good caveat for distancing myself from any consequences if it all goes wrong. One of the first phone calls I received about the news was from Mo Mowlam, who was delighted. I pay tribute to her and to her predecessor.
	My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the stability of the institutions and about the need for those decent, good loyalists to consider how they can contribute to the process. He is also right about the marginalisation of the dissident republicans. I do not believe that they represent any people, any strategy or any modern reality at all. That is why I think they will eventually be completely marginalised.
	My hon. Friend is also right about the people of Northern Ireland. They have a character that has been forged in a crucible over decades. They never cease to amaze me, and I am privileged to have been asked to work alongside them.

Lembit �pik: Despite my evident seniority in the gang of three here, I shall keep my comments proportionately brief. First, I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. Secondly, does he agree that its real historic significance is to show that, through dialogue and acting in good faith, the pathway to peace has genuinely been cleared? Many people did not believe that to be possible.
	On loyalist weapons, is the Secretary of State aware that the Ulster Defence Association said last night:
	Decommissioning is not on the cards?
	The Progressive Unionist party has said that the IRA statement is seriously significant. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any recent meetings between the Decommissioning Commission and those paramilitary groups, in particular the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Freedom Fighters? Is there any indication that they will follow the IRA's example and live up to their responsibilities in terms of the Good Friday agreement? If not, what practical measures does he foresee the House employing to put pressure on them to do so?
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will take a strategic approach to demilitarisation, which his statement so rightly laid out, to ensure that those, especially in nationalist communities, who have been cynical about the Government's commitment to it realise that there is a long-term and well thought out plan to maintain the impetus towards normalisation? Will he also give his view of the time scale for moving forward to implement Patten to a fuller extent than has been achieved so far?
	I, too, pay tribute to the many individuals in Northern Irish politics and in the House who have shown courage and great stature in getting us this far. Does the Secretary of State agree that many of us consistently supported the Good Friday agreement from the start and that that consistency has been vindicated? Perhaps most important of all, there is now a compelling argument for those who have not seen fit to regard the Good Friday agreement as the way forward to peace to change their view.

John Reid: Yes, I entirely agree that we have come a long way, despite predictions that we would not be able to achieve any of these things. When I say we, I mean all of us who are committed to making the agreement work. When we are overawed by the challenges of what remains to be done, we can do no better than look back to see how many times it was predicted that we could not do something, and how many times we have. Eventually, managed to do it.
	I have no evidence that the UVF has been in contact. More important I suppose, one of its spokesmen, David Ervine, said that he has no evidence that it intends to decommission. However, I have said today that I wish people would reflect on what they could do, even if they feel at this stage that they cannot make such an historic move, and that circumstances are different. They should come in and contribute to the process, because there are many good loyalists who want that. They may have a degree of scepticism, a degree of worry or a degree of trepidation, but they are better contributing to the process than sitting outside it.
	On the impetus towards a normal society, yes, I hope that we can keep up that dynamic, but it is not entirely in our hands. Of course we have the major responsibility, but we all have to work together to create the circumstances where that becomes possible. Yesterday's step was a major move in that direction. I hope that the immediate measures that we have announced today show that we are willing to respond and willing to think creatively, and politically to work with others to ensure that we return to what we would call a more normal society there.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about Patten. The implementation plan has been published. The first meeting of the new board, which is cross-party, is next week. We shall proceed from there.

Harry Barnes: This is a fine statement on a fine development. Despite the Secretary of State being modest, we should congratulate him on the role that he has played in connection with it. He knows that the art of the impossible is hard work, and that goes for his predecessors, back to Peter Brooke who found a form of words that set the whole process going.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend will try to do something else that is impossiblethat is, get the IRA to operate its own amnesty for people who have been placed in internal or external exile. Nothing would be better in order to bring in the support of doubters on some Opposition Benches. There is an exceptionally good report by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the matter.

John Reid: I hear what my hon. Friend says, certainly on the last point. We must all make an effort to resolve past conflicts and painful memories of the past. What my hon. Friend says has a degree of resonanceand, as tributes have been flying round, I think he should be thanked for the consistent contribution that he has made over the years, despite the ebbs and flows of the process. It has been tremendously valuable.

David Burnside: It appears that some Englishmen ask quite long questions as well.
	There appeared to be two serious and important omissions from the statement. One related to the proposed amnesty that the Secretary of State announced at Weston Park. If we are looking ahead with some hope, surely the Secretary of State should have made a statement to the House saying that no legal proceedings would be brought against those who have served in the security forces and the Regular Army, including the Ulster Defence Regiment, the Royal Irish Regiment, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Reserve, relating to any incident over the past 30 years.
	I entirely agree that we need loyalist decommissioningthe Unionist parties are at one on thatbut has not the unfair treatment of loyalists over the parades issue helped, to an extent, to alienate the loyalist community in many parts of the Province? The Secretary of State omitted any reference to what he said at Weston Park about a review of the remit of the Parades Commission, which we consider very necessary.

John Reid: I hope I have helped to correct the idea that we are talking about a single category of people on the run for whom there will be an amnesty. I have explained the complications, and I will not stretch your indulgence by doing so again, Mr. Speaker.
	The hon. Gentleman may want to reflect on his second point. I know that it was sincere and that he thought he was making it on behalf of those who have been involved in the Army, but I am not sure that the leadership and rank and file of the armed forces want to be thought of as the equivalent of terrorists.
	As it happens, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's view of the Parades Commission, although I know that there have been many contentious decisions. Indeed, every decision is contentious, since whether the commission decides that a parade should go ahead, or should be stopped or should be rerouted, one side or the other will claim that it is biased. I am eternally grateful that it has shown the endurance to continue to do that, but we are prepared to review its workings. That was encompassed in the statement at Weston Park, and I am pleased to confirm that it is still the case.

Kevin McNamara: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most prominent name on the list that he gave was the last, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)? Over the years, he showed that the democratic way was the correct way, and also showed tremendous courage, for which he was bitterly criticised in the House, in entering into talks with Gerry Adams. The Hume-Adams talks led to a great furore, and to the work done by the former Taoiseach Mr. Reynolds and the former Prime Minister Mr. Major.
	Can my right hon. Friend tell us when we can expect to see the legislation that is likely to be forthcoming on the police and other matters? Will he also include in his accolade members of the Republican movement who, by means of tremendous courage, persuaded the movement to accept the necessity of the democratic process? They had to face up to people with desperate memories of pogroms against them in west Belfast and other areas when they had no arms to protect themselves from an unreformed RUC and militant mobs.

John Reid: As I think my hon. Friend will have heard, among those whom I thanked were the leadership of the republican movement. He will forgive me, however, ifalthough I have the utmost admiration for my friend and colleague of many years the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)I do not produce a hierarchy of tributes. In that spirit, we should remember that while the optimism derived from yesterday's events can be a great driving force for the future, euphoria is often the mother and father of disillusionment later. We should keep our feet on the ground.
	It is true that the hon. Member for Foyle made an outstanding contribution, as did many others. It takes two to tango; with a complicated dance such as Northern Ireland, it takes a lot more than two to get through it. While we have had the satisfaction of saying that what happened yesterday was historic, we should have not a sense of euphoria but as a sense of dynamism and optimism to tackle what are realistically some very hard challenges ahead.

Michael Mates: Does the Secretary of State recall the promise that the Prime Minister made to the people of Northern Ireland in the referendum campaign that he would personally ensure that there was parallel movement on all aspects of the Good Friday agreement? While in no way wanting to belittle what happened yesterday, is it not a fact that this is the first move that the IRA has made, and that it has taken nearly two and a half years to make it? Has the right hon. Gentleman had any assurances either from General de Chastelain or from any of the people to whom he has been talking who represent the republican movement that this is not a one-off gesture, but part of a continuing process of decommissioning? If he has not had that assurance and he has given the quid pro quo today in his various announcements, we will shortly be back in exactly the muddle that has held us up for so many months.

John Reid: The hon. Gentleman, or the right hon. Gentleman[Interruption.] Not yet? That is one of the many aspects of the process that are long overdue. The hon. Gentleman, who has tremendous expertise in these matters, will know that all of us would have wanted such a step to be taken earlier. I do not think that that should allow us to diminish it. All aspects of the Belfast agreement have now been started. Very few of them have been completed; all of them are in the process of organic development. We should allow ourselves a degree of satisfaction that we can now genuinely say that the insurmountable hurdle that was envisaged has begun to be overcome.
	It is fair to say that, although to the House it may not have been a huge deal, to the republican movement it was a huge deal to go on a prolonged ceasefire. We should recognise that. We each carry our own history. The opening of the dumps was a hugely significant move in the republican movement's terms, too. Now that the actual decommissioning has begun, it has added a new dynamic.
	On the specific question, the first part of General de Chastelain's report states:
	On 6th August 2001 the Commission reported that agreement had been reached with the IRA on a method to put . . . arms completely and verifiably beyond use.
	It takes that as its starting point. If the hon. Gentleman checks the statement of 6 August, he will see that it referred to that as an act that would initiate a process.

George Howarth: I, too, urge my right hon. Friend not to be too modest. The House will know that the painstaking work that he, his ministerial colleagues and officials have put in over the past few months in bringing about the developments of the past few days have been highly significant and are much appreciated in the House and elsewhere.
	May I ask my right hon. Friend to consider supporting the call of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and of Sir Reg Empey this morning in an interview that I saw him giving, for the Democratic Unionist partyI hope that it takes this in the friendly spirit in which it is intendedto review its one-foot-in, one-foot-out approach to the institutions? Not only would it bring considerable political weight to the process, but, as its Ministers have already demonstrated, it would bring to the Executive particular talents which are widely admired and would be much appreciated.

John Reid: My hon. Friend's contribution carries particular credibility as he was involved in many of the prolonged discussions and made a valuable contribution as a Minister. He is right to mention the officials at the Northern Ireland Office. They are not everyone's cup of tea; indeed, in Northern Ireland they are not anyone's cup of tea because everyone is suspicious that they are on the other side. However, I can truly sayeven with the fierce competition of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who was proudly acclaiming her officials earlierthat I would put mine up against anyone. They are second to none. They are deeply committed to the people of Northern Ireland in trying to ensure that they have a decent, civilised, modern democratic society there.
	I wish that the DUP were fully in the process. I think that it represents a very important electorate in Northern Ireland and very important strands of thinking. I think that Democratic Unionist Members make a contribution, certainly when they meet me. Although it is not always a contribution that entirely accords with my own view, it is one that I think we cannot forget. I wish that, like everyone else, they were part of this agreement. I believe that the more pillars of Northern Ireland we build this on, the better it will be. I have no hesitation in saying that, in terms of the individual contributions they can make, they are every bit as able as every other party. There are also some outstanding characters among them, one of whom I believe may be trying to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair.

Ian Paisley: The statement refers to what happened yesterday, but what did happen yesterday? Something happened in secret. The Secretary of State does not know what happened yesterday. He cannot tell the House the number of guns that were dealt with, the pounds of explosive that were dealt with, if they were, or the number of other weapons that were dealt with. The last time we met him, the general told us that the Prime Minister would not know that information and that no inventory of destroyed arms would be given to the Government.
	Today, however, the Secretary of State has produced a paper that is absolutely transparentthere are no hidey- holes in this statement. We are told that there will be new legislation, even before the new Police Board has even had the decency of being allowed to have a meeting. The right hon. Gentleman has announced that there will be new legislation in the House, although a former Secretary of State told us that the legislation would not be changed because it reflected Patten, and that that was the way that it was going to remain.
	The statement also referred to outstanding prosecutions. I do not believe that any Unionist wants any member of the Army to be dealt with as a terrorist but I believe that they deserve to be taken into full consideration when those matters are under consideration. I stand up for the rights of the RUC men and those who are concerned in that matter.
	There is another matter: all this dismantling of security. Work is starting today on Sturgan mountain and Camlough mountain, in South Armagh. Work will start tomorrow in Newtownhamilton. Work will be starting to demolish the Magherafelt Army base. All that is transparent; we can see everything that is being done. We cannot, however, see anything that has been done by the IRA, and we are not going to see it. We therefore have a right to be sceptical about it.
	On what the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said, there is no coalition between the DUP and IRA-Sinn Fein. There never will be such a coalition, and he very well knows that. For him to come to the House and try to tell people that the DUP is in coalition with IRA-Sinn Fein is utter, absolute rubbish.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman some elbow room, but he must put questions to the Secretary of State.

Ian Paisley: I shall put one very important question. Will the Secretary of State explain to me and my European constituents why they have been visited by the security forces in the areas where all that dismantling will take place, when they have been warned that there is a threat from the Real IRA? What assurance can he give them, as he pulls down their security, on how they will be protected? They did not say that that threat exists; the security forces told them that it does.
	Will the Secretary of State please list the other events that have occurred in north Belfast, such as that involving the man who was shot by the IRA on Sunday afternoon? Why is that not mentioned? Why is the young person who was driven over and killed not mentioned? Is it because they were Protestants that they were not mentioned in the Minister's statement?

John Reid: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I will not respond to the hon. Gentleman's last comment, other than to say that any death in Northern Irelandwhether of a Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Muslimis taken with equal seriousness because all those lives have equal worth. That is the view of the whole House.
	As regards the commission, it is not entirely true that there is no information about the decommissioning. In fact, the report, although brief, tells us a good deal. Members of the commission witnessed the event; they are relying not on others' words but on their own eyes. They regard it as a significant event, and these are people who have served in the military. They are not armchair generals, but people who have had an active role in the military. They confirmed that the materiel in question included arms, ammunition and explosives; in other words, not one or two rusty rifles.
	The commission said that the arms were put completely beyond use and dealt with in accordance with the decommissioning scheme under the legislation approved by Parliament. That means that, under paragraph 11 of the decommissioning scheme of August 2001, the commission has taken a record of the arms decommissioned and has verified the information in that record. In other words, although it is the commission's judgment that such information should remain confidential, the commission has been able to record the details of the arms decommissioned.
	Finally, the commission says
	We will continue our contact with the IRA . . . in the pursuit of our mandate.
	That means, as the participants in the Good Friday agreement agreed, the total decommissioning of all paramilitary arms. It would be better for the whole House to pay tribute to John de Chastelain for the work that he has done, rather than to cast aspersions on the manner in which he has conducted it.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me a perfectly legitimate question, which he put with passion. Of course advisers advise and politicians and Ministers decide, but, as I have said, before I take any decision regarding matters of normalisation, I consult with and take advice from the GOC Northern Irelanda man with a not undistinguished military record of fighting for his country and no known proclivities towards appeasement or republicanismand the Chief Constable of the RUC. Both of those individuals were consulted on the announcements that I made today. If it is good enough for them, it should probably be good enough for most Members of this House.

David Winnick: I welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend and the progress made in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that we must not forget the victims of terrorist violence, be they victims of the IRA or of the loyalist murder gangs? Does he further agree that, speaking bluntly, one of the greatest blessings that Northern Ireland could now have would be if the leader of the Democratic Unionist party spent the rest of his political life trying to make the Good Friday agreement work, and thus help to undermine and destroy the forces of violence in which he has never been involved? It would undermine those forces if he took a positive and useful role in making the Good Friday agreement work and in making sure that politics instead of the gun dominates that part of the United Kingdom.

John Reid: Yes of course we remember the victims, on all sides and from all backgrounds, of this terrible period in Northern Ireland's history. It is precisely to try to avoid another generation of victims that we are engaged in this project, which involves so many challenges and difficult decisions. This process is about trying to avoid another 3,500 people dying, as has happened during the troubles.
	Sometimes we in this House underestimate what that number of deaths means to Northern Ireland. To reveal the extent of the suffering caused, if the equivalent number of deaths had occurred in the rest of the United Kingdom, the total recorded number of deaths in Northern Ireland has to be multiplied by 40. That gives a total of between 120,000 and 140,000 people. If the same number of deaths had occurred in the US, it would be equivalent to 480,000 people.
	We should not forget. As I said at the start of the statement, that should be the spark that causes us to make sure that a conflict that has lasted between 30 and 800 years should not continue to affect the next generation of people in Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland. I agree that I wish that the leader of the Democratic Unionist party would throw his considerable political weight behind the process.

Andrew MacKay: Although I welcome what is clearly good news, will the Secretary of State accept that some of us will be very cautiously optimistic? We have been let down before, and promises have been broken before. To take the process a little further forward and encourage the Provisional IRA to decommission more weapons, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he needs to take an even tougher stance against those who have failed to decommission? They include the dissident republican groups and the so-called loyalists, both of which should be taken on once and for all.

John Reid: I think that I agree on both points. Being cautious does not stop us being radical: it means merely that we have to have a degree of surety about the risk involved in being radical. There is a sense in which being cautious should not require political timidity.
	One old philosopher said that the best way to approach such historically important occasions was with pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will. That would be a good platform for most of us. I see that Tory Front-Bench Members are nodding in agreement: I shall not tell them who the author of that remark was, lest I embarrass them.
	We must be prepared to pursue robustly those who remain on the other side of the democratic line, who will not cross that bridge in pursuit of the peace process. Many of them masquerade under the guise of a glorified cause, but are in fact up to their eyes in racketeering, drugs, murder and mafia activities. We should not give them the salutation that they are involved in some great political cause.

Betty Williams: May I offer my personal congratulations to my right hon. Friend, his colleagues and his predecessors? I hope and pray that matters will progress satisfactorily and smoothly, and with a higher degree of tolerance on all sides. Does my right hon. Friebd believe that the wider world can draw lessons from events in Northern Ireland?

John Reid: The message is simple. It is that jaw-jaw is almost always better than war-war. A vacuum is created when we stop talking and attempting to reach solutions to problems through dialogue, and that allows men of violence in.
	I therefore thank my hon. Friend for her question, her thanks and her hope. I thank her most of all for her offer of prayers.

Graham Brady: What is the Secretary of State's understanding of the word significant as used by the commission? Does it apply to the magnitude of the political step taken, or does it imply a significant reduction in the capacity to undertake terrorist activity?

John Reid: I hate to be tautological, but my understanding is that the word is used to mean other than insignificant. I do not know whether the word is used to refer to the quantity of arms, or the length of time that such arms could have been used to conduct an armed struggle or terrorism.
	However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read General de Chastelain's report, in which the general gives an indication of why he does not want to go into specific quantities. In our attempts to manage a peace process towards a horizon, we have discovered how difficult it is to move from A to B. General de Chastelain has discovered that too, and his opinion, as expressed in the report, is that to issue further details would not assistin fact would inhibitprogress towards the goal of a continual process of decommissioning.
	I admire General de Chastelain and his work, and I shall not try to second-guess or psychoanalyse his use of semantics. However, the fact that he has bothered to use the word significant should be significant for us.

John McDonnell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his knowledge of Gramsci, the Marxist. I hold out the hope that he will one day return to dialectical materialism.
	The cross-border bodies are a critical part of the Good Friday agreement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is now no obstacle to republicans serving on those cross-border bodies and that they should be allowed to get on with their work?

John Reid: I hope that that will be the case. One reason why the Belfast agreement encompassed a solution to many problems is not just that the two communities in Northern Ireland were able to come together, although that was important, but that the Northern Ireland Assembly, through the Executive and along with our partners in the Irish Government, were able to give an all-Ireland dimension to tackling some of the practical problems without instilling the fear that that somehow imposed a constitutional arrangement. I hope that those involved will be able to do what my hon. Friend suggests in the near future.
	I know that my hon. Friend will understand when I say that dialectical materialism was a product not of Karl Marx but of Joseph Stalin, and that therefore I have never adhered to that particular creed.

Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State tell those in Northern Ireland who, like me, he might categorise as a tad sceptical, why, when considering whether the republican movement is committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, they should put more weight on an unspecified event where an unspecified number of weapons were allegedly decommissioned or put out of use in an unspecified way than on the very real record of the 107 shootings carried out by the Provisional IRA during its ceasefire, the 270 so-called punishment beatings, the dozen murders that it has carried out, its gun-running in Florida, its exploits in Colombia, its racketeering and its street violence? Why should we put more weight on the unspecified as opposed to the detail? Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that those on the DUP Bench apply no different criteria to a requirement for total, verifiable and visible decommissioning from loyalist paramilitary organisations than they do from republicans?

John Reid: I not only take it from the hon. Gentleman, I believe it. I take it, therefore, not as an allegation or an assertion but as something that I am willing to accept. From the use of the word allegedly, it is obvious that he is not willing to accept the word of General de Chastelain. He and I part company on that. I accept the word of General John de Chastelain and I think that the majority of people in the House accept it.

Andy King: I, too, join the rest of the House in welcoming the very good news about this first momentous step in the peace process. At last we have broken through, and now our prayers must join with those of everyone in Ireland and throughout the country about the continuation of the peace process.
	My right hon. Friend referred earlier to the loyalist paramilitaries. What are his views on what steps they should be taking with regard to the next stage in the peace process?

John Reid: I think that the entire House is clear about what step all the paramilitaries should be taking to move forwardthey should put their arms beyond use. What I said earlier in response to the comments of a spokesman for some of the loyalist groups is that if they do not feel able to do that, we would welcome them telling us what they could do. Certainly, they should desist immediately from widespread, sectarian, indiscriminate attacks, attacks on small children and attempts to mutilate and ultimately murder people. I cannot for the life of me see how anyone thinks that that will assist their cause. Although we should not be euphoric about what happened yesterday and we should keep our feet on the ground, I hope that the other paramilitaries will consider carefully nevertheless and see how they can build on the events that took place yesterday.

Laurence Robertson: Does the Secretary of State accept that perhaps one reason for scepticism and, indeed, cynicism in Northern Ireland is that people are genuinely concerned about the level of control that the paramilitaries seem to have over the streets? Given that fact, does he accept that while verification of weapons being put beyond use is extremely important, an assessmenthis assessmentof the weapons that are kept by paramilitaries on both sides, and not only by the mainstream organisations, is equally important?

John Reid: Yes. It is not just the weapons that are kept, although that is significant, but the activity for which they are used. None of the ceasefires is perfect. I specified the UDA and the Loyalist Defence Force because the level, scale and nature of the violence in which they were engaged was distinguishable, not by politicians alone but by others whose advice I seek in these matters, from the activities of some of the paramilitary groupsthe UVF and the IRAwho, in the round, remain on ceasefire. Our ultimate aim is simple. It is to create a Northern Ireland where people's problems, grievances and political objectives are sorted out and achieved by democratic means. Given the problems that we have had and the length of time for which we have had them on the island of Ireland, while impatience is understandable, the fact that we have managed to achieve in less than a decade things that some people thought would never happen in 100 years should be a spur to us.
	I will end with a brief anecdote. On Saturday night, I was in Wexford. I have to confess, although it will destroy my credentials, that I went to the opera. It occurred to me when I was there that it was May 1169 when Robert FitzStephen first landed on the island of Ireland with 600 soldiers. There I was, 832 years later, trying to play some small role in overcoming some of the problems that have persisted ever since. When we understand the nature and magnitude of what we are dealing with and add to that the past 30 yearswith the deaths, misery and pain and the burden of history that is on everyonewhat we have achieved so far is, thankfully, some recompense to the people of Northern Ireland for having supported this peace process. What we achieved yesterday was another major milestone in that journey.

Gregory Campbell: The Secretary of State outlined a series of events beginning todayhis term was security normalisation processes. This process has been going on for many monthsin fact, several years. Just as these events are continuous, obvious and transparent, what steps can he take to assure the House that the decommissioning process, if it indeed has begun, will be continuous, obvious and transparent?

John Reid: I cannot guarantee success in any area. We are all putting our efforts into it, but I will not pretend to the House that the peace process is irrevocable or inevitable. Commentators write about that, but my view is that with human beings things only succeed if we continue to apply all our efforts to ensure that they do so. As a general proposition, I do not think that anyone in the House who guaranteed that the process would be a success would be believed or believable. However, if I am asked what can give us the best guarantee of success in dealing with this difficult issueputting arms beyond use in the midst of a transition from conflict to peaceI have no doubt that it is the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning led by General John de Chastelain.
	If the hon. Gentleman has a better idea of how to put arms beyond use and how to achieve that, I am always willing to listen; but if he comes up with the same solution that has been tried for the past 800 years, on the evidence, I should be somewhat sceptical about it.

Points of Order

Tam Dalyell: On a succinct point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the exchanges, initiated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and taken up by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and myself, concerning cluster bombs and land mines, and in the light of my approaches to the Chief Whip, the Solicitor-General's office and, indeed, to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, would you look kindly, Mr. Speaker, on my request that, as the Solicitor-General will be in the House at 12.20 tomorrow for Question Time, she make a statement to follow up her written answer? That answer stated:
	As chief legal advisers to Her Majesty's Government, the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General are available to advise the Government on all questions of international and domestic law. In this capacity the Law Officers have been asked to advise, from time to time, on legal issues relating to the use of force.[Official Report, 18 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 1284W-85W.]
	It is said that the Americans may have dropped this arsenalthis weaponry; none the less, it is also true that it came from the British base of Diego Garcia in the Indian ocean which brings it into order as a legitimate matter for the House to consider. Will you look kindly on allowing some kind of statement from the Solicitor- General tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: It is up to the Solicitor-General whether she wishes to make a statement. I have no control over those matters. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can raise the matter at business questions tomorrow and put in a bid for such a statement.

Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware from exchanges that took place earlier that the Secretary of State for International Development ducked out of giving evidence to a Select Committee earlier this week, citing as a reason the fact that she was unwilling to instruct her officials to prepare a written memorandum and despite the fact that the Committee had said that it did not require such a memorandum.
	You are the custodian of our rights in this place, Mr. Speaker. There seems to be a new development, whereby a Minister declines to be cross-examined by a Committee because of the absence of a written document for whose preparation that Minister is responsible. Can you do anything to ensure that in future neither the House nor its Committees are treated in that cavalier manner?

Mr. Speaker: The Chair has no power to force an hon. Member to appear before a Committee. I heard what the Secretary of State said and I also heard what the Chairman of the Select Committee said. It seemed to me that there was a mood of co-operation, so that should assist the right hon. Gentleman and everyone else.

Relationships (Civil Registration)

Jane Griffiths: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for civil registration of a relationship between two people who are cohabiting, and for such registration to afford certain legal rights; and for connected purposes.
	The terms common law wife or common law husband are frequently used to describe people who live together. There are various urban myths about what the terms mean and about what rights people have over one another or over one another's property after they have lived together for a period of time. The time could be six months or two yearsit all depends on what one hears. However, in British law there is no such person as a common law wife or husband; no legal rights or responsibilities are earned by people who live together in a relationship.
	Before Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act 1753, people's relationships could be recognised in several different ways, which attracted some legal and social consequences. One of the most widely known practices was jumping the broomstick. A couple jumped over a broom that was leant against their front door, thereby gaining certain legal rights and responsibilities. Divorce was certainly easier in those days because the relationship was undone by jumping back over the broom in the presence of witnesses. There is no indication of the means used to resolve arguments over the distribution of assets held in common, although probably there were no assets.
	The 1753 Act resulted in relationships being recognised by law when a marriage ceremony took place in a church or chapel. Subsequent legislation widened the measure so that non-conformist ceremonies and those held in register offices were accepted.
	What do I seek to do through the Bill? In July, my constituent, Rose Green, visited my advice surgery. She had lived with John Pendlebery for more than 12 years; they were engaged but they had never marriedthey never got around to it. They loved each other and saw no reason to change their situation. They expected to spend the rest of their lives together, but in September last year John Pendlebery died tragically and suddenly from a brain haemorrhage. That is when Rose found out that people who live together have no rights or responsibilities towards each other. She was not allowed to register John's death. She was not allowed to sign for his funeral. She even had to get his family's permission to make an entry in the book of remembrance.
	Rose said:
	It was as though I didn't exist, that I had never been part of his life. It was very hurtful. He was my common law husband, my partner, my best friend, my soulmate. I feel that I am John's widow, though technically I'm not. I have no status. There's no word in the English language to describe what I am to John.
	That is why I seek leave to bring in the Bill, so that people like Rose and John who live together can have some rights and responsibilities towards each other.
	I am grateful for the support that I have received from the Law Society in preparing the Bill. If anyone wants to read the philosophical underpinning for the changes to the law that I propose, they could do worse than look at the report published by the Law Society in September 1999: Cohabitation proposals for reform of the law. It can be found at www.lawsoc.org.uk under family law.
	I have recently been contacted by the Solicitors Family Law Association which also proposes that there should be a new cohabitation law, separate and distinct from matrimonial law. Those proposals are based on the experience of the association's 5,000 members in dealing with the breakdown of families, both married and unmarried. They are members of the legal professions who work daily with people in the same situation as Rose and John, their children and families. Members of the association say that the existing law is unclear, uncertain and inadequate.
	I am also pleased to have the support of the Thames Valley Police Federation. It is campaigning against inequality in the police pension scheme. If unmarried police officers die, their pension dies with them, whereas if they are married, an annual pension of one half of their final pension is payable to their spouse.
	That inequality does not affect only a few people, as some have suggested. A recent survey showed that 52 per cent. of the 6,000 employees of Thames Valley police are unmarried; 40 per cent. of that number have said that they have no intention to marry. That means that 600 Thames Valley police officers, or 10 per cent. of that force's employees, would benefit from the Bill.
	I also pay tribute to WPC Alison Brown of Thames Valley police. Alison has been in a stable relationship for more than a decade and, like all Thames Valley police officers, pays 11 per cent. of her salary into the scheme, yet should she die her partner would not be looked after. Alison has been leading a campaign for a change in the police pension scheme.
	It is ironic that that situation is reflected throughout public sector pension schemes, while many private sector schemes recognise the rights of partners and allow people to nominate whoever they wish to receive benefits if they should die. Although I said that the situation for Thames Valley police is reflected throughout the public sector, that is not quite true. In July, hon. Members voted for our own scheme to allow pension benefits to be paid to unmarried partners. I supported that change and voted for it. It would be ironic if hon. Members opposed the Bill, thus denying others the rights we so recently gave ourselves. I ask hon. Members to consider how that might look outside the House.
	Can we learn from the rest of the world? Is there anything similar elsewhere? In some parts of the world, people are considered to have a de facto marriage after they have lived together for a certain period. That is the case in most states in Australia. I considered that option, which would automatically cover all people who live together, but I rejected it. It is important that people choose to have rights and responsibilities towards each other and that they opt in.
	If we look closer to home and to Europe, we see a different model of people who live together earning rights and responsibilities. People have to choose to opt in. The model is one of partnership registration, as I propose today. It already exists in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, France, Germany, Belgium and the Catalonia region of Spain. Denmark has had a scheme for registration of partnerships since 1989, with the other countries following on at intervals. Virtually all our near European neighbours have introduced the change and the sky has not fallen in.
	One concern about the Bill is the financial implication. It would amend social security legislation to place registered partners in the same position as spouses and unmarried heterosexual partners. At present, lesbian and gay partners are treated more generously under social security provision, and it seems likely that the savings to the Treasury that such a change would involve would offset any small costs arising from changes to inheritance tax and pensions.
	I am also grateful for the support and help that I have had with the Bill from Stonewall and Angela Mason. Shortly after a piece appeared in my weekly newspaper, the Reading Chronicle, about Rose Green, the constituent I mentioned earlier, I was contacted by Ed and Tony who have been in a stable relationship for many years. Because he was a few years older than Tony, Ed was concerned about what would happen if he died first. I am grateful for the support that I have received from Ed and Tony in putting together the Bill, but they are not alone.
	John is in a seven-year relationship. With his partner, he is buying a car, and the model comes with a year's free insurance, but that insurance applies only to what are described as normal couples. Therefore, John and his partner have to decide who can be insured for freethe other will have to pay.
	Dick and Ben are in their 70s and have been together for 50 years. They have endured the general prejudice against the gay community, as well as some of the injustices that the Bill sets out to correct. They jointly own their home and most other assets, so they will face massive inheritance taxes that might make it impossible for the survivor to remain in their home.
	Rachel has been with her partner for 21 years, and they are life partners. Rachel has just been diagnosed with cancer and, because she is the breadwinner, that has brought home to both partners the financial, legal and other concerns that they have. Rachel says that the NHS has improved in its recognition of same-sex partners, although she has also said that one is left feeling grateful rather than with the feeling that one has the right to be recognised.
	Mark wrote to me to support the Bill. He said:
	Many people criticise homosexual people for the alleged frequency and rapidity with which they change partners, yet still take the opinion that a measure to support enduring and meaningful gay relationships is also wrong.
	I have introduced the Bill for that reason.
	An article that appeared in The Times on Wednesday 17 October said:
	Anyone who registers a death on a death certificate must indicate the capacity

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Lady has had her allocated time.

Stuart Bell: I oppose this ten-minute Bill. [Interruption.] I oppose it notwithstanding the comments made behind me and I do so as a Member of Parliament, as the Second Church Estates Commissioner and on behalf of my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) knows that I hold her in the highest respect and I accept fully her right to introduce the Bill. She has mentioned a number of constituency cases, so I will mention some constituents of mine.
	As the Second Church Estates Commissioner, I put my opposition to the Bill crisply and succinctly. Marriage, as the law and as the Church of England understands it, is a commitment between one man and one woman. There is no provision in the Church's understanding for anything other than such a union in marriage. As the House of Bishops makes clear, marriage is a pattern that is given in creation and is deeply rooted in our social instincts. Marriage is not, of course, the only pattern given us for a life of love. Unmarried people may have a different pattern of loving relationships that are also to be valued and appreciated.
	The Church recognises that love is not only a question of intimate relationships. Married people love others as well as their partners; they love their children, their friends, strangers and sometimes even their enemies.
	I respect my hon. Friend, but I wish to refer to some of the concerns of the constituents who have written me. Constituents from whatever constituency have equal rights and they are entitled to be heard in the House.
	One constituent has written to say that the Bill is an attempt to bring in by another route what are, effectively, same-sex marriages. The briefing that my hon. Friend sent me on how civil partnership works in France confirms that. She says that, once registered, the partners enjoy virtually the same tax, social security and property and inheritance rights and obligations as married couples except for the fact that they are not allowed to adopt children. Couples who have a civil registration will, in reality, have all the rights of a married couple. That is also clear from the wording that states that Bill would provide
	for registration to afford certain legal rights.
	Such registration is not needed for heterosexual couples and my constituent would not wish it be extended to same-sex couples.
	My constituent also points out that there is nothing to prevent such couples from making wills in one another's favour and that my hon. Friend's Bill would bring about a major redefinition of what is involved in marriage.
	Homosexual relationships are not new butnotwithstanding references to other jurisdictions every society has restricted marriages to heterosexual relationships that are intended to be monogamous and for life. Were there to be such a major change from that concept, there should be not only a public debate but a referendum. In any event, the Government's position is that marriage is the surest foundation for raising children and remains the choice of the majority of people in Britain.
	I also draw the House's attention to the categorical assurance that the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), gave to me on the Floor of the House in the debate reported in Hansard on 25 January 1999, at column 22 of volume 324. He said that there would be no reduction in the age of consent to 14 for homosexual acts; that no legislation that suggested an acceptance of homosexual marriages would be proposed by the Government; and that there would be no legal adoption of children by homosexual couples. The former Home Secretary gave me undertakings on all three points and said that it was not the Government's intention to introduce legislation in respect of any of those matters. I shall seek the same undertakings from the current Home Secretary.
	I am on public record as being totally opposed to any form of discriminationwhether in the workplace or anywhere elsein relation to one's sexuality. However, I oppose the concept of civil partnership that my hon. Friend proposes. It would provide the same rights as those conferred by marriage, leading to an unravelling of the undertaking given to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn.
	I shall oppose the Bill for all those reasons. I urge all my right hon. and hon. Friends to follow me in the Division Lobby.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):
	The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 59.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Jane Griffiths, Dr. Evan Harris, Mr. Simon Thomas, Chris McCafferty, Mr. Chris Smith, Glenda Jackson, Mr. David Lepper, Dr. Phyllis Starkey and Dr. Nick Palmer.

Relationships (Civil Registration)

Jane Griffiths accordingly presented a Bill to provide for civil registration of a relationship between two people who are cohabiting, and for such registration to afford certain legal rights; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 November, and to be printed [Bill 36].

Orders of the Day
	  
	Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Stephen Byers: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	In a packed parliamentary programme, I am pleased to be able to introduce the Bill this evening. The Government regard it as a central part of our drive to keep our democracy relevant to and representative of the people whom we serve. Because I know that many hon. Members want to speak and because of the late hour at which the debate commenced, I shall restrict my comments.
	When the Labour Government were elected in 1997, a record number of women Labour Members of Parliament entered the House. That was a result of the positive measures that had been taken by the Labour party to increase the representation of women. As a Minister since 1997, I firmly believe that several of the policies that the Government have adopted since 1997 came about because of the increased number of women Members of Parliament on the Government Benches.
	We have improved maternity rights and pay. The package announced in the recent Budget increased maternity pay: the flat rate will rise to 75 a week from April next year, and to 100 a week from April 2003. The period for which maternity pay is available will also lengthen, from 18 to 26 weeks, from April 2003. That comes in addition to parental leave, time off for emergencies and the same rights for part-time workers as for full-time employees. The Government have also given a boost to the pay of low-paid workers, the majority of whom are women, through the introduction of the national minimum wage4.10 an hour, to be increased to 4.20 an hour in October 2002.
	We have also established a national child care strategy to deliver choice by extending the provision of good-quality, affordable and accessible child care. More than 700,000 places were made available under the last Labour Government, and our target is to make 1.6 million available by 2004. We have also guaranteed a free nursery education place for every four-year-old whose parent wants it; that is to be extended to three-year-olds by 2004.
	Those are all positive policies which were introduced because of the large number of Labour women Members in the previous Parliament. We should be proud of the real progress that was made as a result of their endeavours. Many of those policies were promoted and supported by women Members and the result is a package of measures that will make a real difference.
	The positive discrimination measures that the Labour party introduced and employed in the period before the 1997 election were stopped as a result of a case brought before an employment tribunal. The Jepson case put a brake on the development of positive measures to encourage the participation of women in our elected bodies. As a result of the case, the Labour party was unable to adopt the same positive measures for the 2001 general election.
	It is no coincidence that, in 2001, we witnessed the first drop for 20 years in the number of women elected to the House of Commons. We have to admit that responsibility for that drop rests with all the political parties that are represented here. Since the Jepson case, in answer to the question, What are you doing to improve and encourage the representation of women?, parties have been able to hide behind the decision made in that case and say that they cannot introduce positive discrimination measures because of the outcome of that employment tribunal.
	Once the Bill is on the statute book, however, there will be no hiding place for political parties. They will face a stark choice: to do nothing and say that it will all work out all right in the endjust give it enough timeor to acknowledge that something positive and fundamental must be done and that the situation whereby women are starkly under-represented in our national Parliament and in local government has to change.
	The statistics illustrate the need for steps to be taken: only 18 per cent. of Members of Parliament are female and three quarters of councillors are male. The argument that we should leave things as they are is, the Government believe, not sustainable. We know from our experience in the House of Commons that momentum to improve representation of women can be lost once positive measures are no longer in place. It is clear that there has to be a sustained effort.
	That is not to say that there is not also a strong case for non-direct measures, such as basic equal opportunities training for selection panel members, or parties doing more to encourage participation in politics generally, at all levels and by all sections of the community. However, relying on improvements being made without direct intervention has been tried before and it has failed.
	That view stopped the House of Lords being radically reformed until almost a century after the first attempts were made. It meant that there were 24 women members of the House of Commons in 1945, and almost 40 years later in 1983four years after the election of the first female Prime Ministerthere were only 23. It was that appalling lack of women Members of Parliament that made the Labour party introduce positive measures in respect of candidate selection before the 1997 general election.
	As I said, the Labour party's approach was challenged in 1996 in the case of Jepson and the Labour party. In that case, an employment tribunal held that section 13 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 did cover the selection of candidates by political parties. That decision is the main reason why the Bill is before the House today. The Bill will amend the Sex Discrimination Act and provide that parts II to IV of the Act will not apply to measures adopted by a party to reduce inequality in the numbers of men and women elected as its candidates. Equivalent amendments to cover Northern Ireland are made to the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.
	The Bill allows political parties choice and flexibility, although the measures taken must be adopted for the purpose of reducing inequality. It leaves untouched all the other rights established under existing case law against discrimination in any other circumstances, as it rightly should, and leaves employment tribunals untouched as the forum for redress. That is the simplest and most focused option available to us. An important principle behind the Bill is that it is not the Government's role to regulate the internal workings of political parties, which would be wrong and inappropriate, so the Bill does not seek to do that. We do not want to dictate what measures could be introduced by political parties to reduce inequality. Indeed, the Bill does not force political parties to take any steps whatever. It is permissive; it simply allows political parties the freedom to decide what measures are appropriate in the circumstances to reduce inequality.
	The Bill is not restricted to representation at Westminster. Although the extent of inequality varies between elected bodies in the United Kingdom, the Government believe that they all have significant room for improvement. Compared with Westminster, the devolved Administrations have been more successful in ensuring that women are represented. Women make up more than 37 per cent. of Members of the Scottish Parliament, and more than 41 per cent. of Members of the National Assembly for Wales. However, it is important that those bodies can increase, or at the very least maintain, the representation of women that they have achieved. It is therefore important that the Bill's provisions cover Scotland and Wales. I am pleased that, with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, they will cover Northern Ireland as well. There have been real improvements in Wales and Scotland and we want to make sure that they are maintained.
	The Bill does not just reflect that position and deal with elections to the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the House of Commons, butand this has received little attentionwill cover the selection of candidates for local government elections. That is important, because many people serve their political apprenticeship in local government; they get used to engaging in political dialogue and debate and it may well be from their experience of local government that they feel able to stand for election to the House of Commons. I do not know whether Members share my experience of constituency surgeries, but it is clear that it is often women who campaign actively on local issues. It is women who come to my surgery to complain about things that are happening in their communities. We should look at ways in which we can involve women; doing so through local government is a positive way to allow that to happen in the political process.

Ian Davidson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if more women are to come into government, particularly local government, it is essential that vacancies be created to allow that to happen more speedily? Is he aware of what happened in the Republic of Ireland, where long-serving councillors were given a gratuity to enable them to leave, thereby creating vacancies for women? Does he not think that that would be helpful in the United Kingdom?

Stephen Byers: I have been trying to avoid the issue of councillors' allowances and pensions for the last two weeks; I thought that that sort of intervention might come from Opposition Members. On a more serious note, I am aware of the scheme introduced in the Irish Republic, but I am not sure that we want to introduce it in the United Kingdom. However, my hon. Friend may have a list of serving councillors on Glasgow which he may wish to pass on; we can see if a local arrangement can be accommodated.
	To return to the serious point about the number of women serving as locally elected councillors, in England, women councillors account for 27 per cent. of local councillors. In Wales, only 20 per cent. of unitary councillors are women. In Scotland, a survey conducted after local government reorganisation found that just over 22 per cent. of councillors were female. Clearly, therefore, there is a major issue of under-representation. Representation in political parties at local government level is low, for reasons of which people will be acutely aware. About 26 per cent. of both Conservative and Labour councillors are women. The Liberal Democrats do better; just over 33 per cent. of their councillors are women, but most people would agree that that figure is still far too low. Some councils do well; 50 per cent. of the councillors on Islington council, for example, are women. The Bill is drafted so that political parties can introduce positive measures to ensure that more women can stand for election as local councillors, and it is important that we recognise that.
	After First Reading, I was asked what was the point of introducing a Bill when only the Labour party would use its provisions to introduce positive measures. It will quite rightly be for political parties to make their own decision, and positive measures will be introduced in different ways. However, it is important that the Bill is being introduced in this parliamentary Session because it will be next September or October that many political parties will determine at conference the method by which candidates for the next general election are selected. If we fail to enact the Bill in this Session, political parties will be unable to introduce election procedures allowing the use of positive measures. I am therefore personally grateful that the Government have been able to find time for the Bill.

Judy Mallaber: On the point about whether it would be only the Labour party that would adopt the measures, will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that, in my constituency at the last election, we had an all-female list of candidates for the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties? That was probably only because we had the encouragement of measures for positive action, and it meant that there was a woman MP. Does my right hon. Friend agree that once having women candidates and MPs is seen to be valuable, there will be pressures on all political parties to seek to use those positive measures to get more women candidates?

Stephen Byers: My hon. Friend has made an important point. People and political parties should be able to see that the priorities of, for example, the governing party reflect the number of women Members of Parliament, as I believe the policies that we adopted between 1997 and 2001 did. The relevance of those priorities to many people, particularly women, ensures that they reflect the priorities of the country's population. One reason why we were successful at the last election is that our programme had relevance because it built on the Government's experience from 1997 to 2001. Provided that there is an underpinning power to introduce positive measures, political parties will increasingly feel that they should use the freedom that we want to give them under the Bill to ensure a dramatic increase in the representation of women in the House, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and local government.
	If we look at our own experience, we can see that positive measures are the only practical means by which we can increase women's representation. I know that there is an argument that we should give support by encouraging people and providing lots of training, as of course, we should. However, the only way to achieve genuine improvement in the representation of women is for political parties to adopt positive measures.

Joan Ryan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if success in selection and election to national and local bodies was based entirely on merit, there would be many more women in the House and our local councils? The Bill is about removing the barriers that stop women having the opportunities to succeed on merit, which is important. Opposition Members often diminish the significance of such measures to diminish women who want to put themselves forward but face huge barriers.

Stephen Byers: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill will give political parties that freedom and break down the barriers that exist. We must be honest enough in the debate to recognise that, whether we like it or not, those barriers are present in political parties. We must take on the arguments. The Bill will allow parties to have a debate about the positive measures that should be taken. Some political parties will resist positive measures. That will be their decision, but because we are removing the effect of the Jepson decision, there will be no hiding place for political parties. They will have to account to the electorate for any continuing under-representation of women on their Benches. That will be reflected in the way in which people vote in the general election.

Andrew Lansley: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Stephen Byers: Yes, of course. I know that the hon. Gentleman has some interesting ideas on the subject.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that I have some interesting ideas, and that I will have the opportunity to catch Madam Deputy Speaker's eye in order to explain them a little more. At this point, I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's ideas. There are different methods of positive action. Parties may choose whether or not to introduce positive action, and they may choose different forms of positive action. To what extent might the Secretary of State contemplate the Labour party taking positive action? Is he advocating a return to the system of 199396 and women-only shortlists? More to the point, if he were advocating such a thing, does he think that, notwithstanding the Bill, it would be liable to challenge under the equal treatment directive?

Stephen Byers: Clearly, it will be a matter for individual political parties to decide on any measures that they want to take by way of positive discrimination. We have carefully considered the methods that the various parties have used. The Liberal Democrats have used particular methods for particular elections. In the run-up to the 1997 election, we had all-women shortlists. All those have been examined in relation to the equal treatment directive. The legal advice that we have received is that, provided positive action is proportionate to the issue, there will be no legal problem.
	To understand why positive measures are necessary, we need only look at the level of women's representation in the House: 23 per cent. of Labour Members of Parliament are women. For the Conservatives, the figure is just over 8 per cent., and for the Liberal Democrats, just over 9 per cent. The Liberal Democrat conference was told last month that if just 4,149 votes had gone the other way, the Liberal Democrats would have had no women Members of Parliament at all. That shows how fragile women's representation is on the Liberal Democrat Benches.

Peter Duncan: rose

Stephen Byers: I am about to conclude, as I know that many hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
	The Bill will allow political parties to take positive action. The Government believe that it is right to give political parties that freedom. I hope that the Bill will be supported in all parts of the House, and that we can send out a clear signal that the status quo is simply not an option, that action must be taken, and that the issue of women's under-representation must be addressed as a priority. That is what the Bill will achieve. I commend it to the House.

Theresa May: It is a pleasure to speak on the Bill. I listened with great interest to the opening speech by the Secretary of State, including the long list of measures that he read out which the Government have taken to help women into the workplace. No one in the House is in any doubt of his personal commitment to keeping women in the workplace.
	The Bill is an enabling Bill designed to allow political parties the freedom to take positive action to try to secure a greater representation of women as Members of the House. I make it clear from the start that the official Opposition will not oppose the Bill. That is a position that we struck as a party when the Bill was first mooted before the election, and I am pleased to confirm that position today. We support both the aim and the principle that underlie the legislationthe aim to get more women into Parliament, and the principle that political parties should have the freedom to decide how to achieve that and to determine their own selection procedures.
	It may be helpful if, at this early stage of the debate, I make it clear that our support for the principle of the Bill does not mean that my party or I support the concept of women-only shortlists.

Stephen Hesford: In that case, can the hon. Lady tell us what measures her party might take?

Theresa May: If the hon. Gentleman will wait until I have got a little way into my speech, I will deal with that. [Interruption.] The speech is about our position on the Bill. I will outline some of the steps that the Conservative party has taken, and some of the steps that we might take.
	In his intervention, the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) illustrated the point that I was about to make. It is sad and frustrating that the debate about the need to get more women into Parliament and how that can be achieved is so often side-tracked into a discussion about all-women shortlists. There are those who, when the subject is raised, leap to the conclusion that it means all-women shortlists. It does not.
	There are those whodare I say it?are opposed to the overall aim of increasing female representation in the House, who use all-women shortlists in order to frighten the horses, if I may use that term. However, those who support the aim of increased female representation should also have a care not to jeopardise that aim by assuming that extreme measures are the only ones that will be successful.
	The Secretary of State referred to the fact that prior to the 1997 election and the legal challenge to what the Labour party was doing, the Labour party used all-women shortlists, but that is not what the debate is about. The debate is about giving political parties the freedom to pursue the legitimate aim of getting more women into Parliament through whatever means suit their particular needs and circumstances. It is up to individual parties to assess the extent to which they have a problem and to find ways of resolving it.
	The Bill gives us and other parties the freedom from the threat of legal action and the freedom to take whatever form of positive action we choose. It is important that the Bill is permissive, not prescriptive. It does not introduce all-women shortlists, but takes the selection of candidates for election out of that part of employment law relating to sex discrimination.
	This issue often gives rise to highly emotive debate, and it is important that we lay some of the myths to rest. I am standing at the Dispatch Box not because I believe that Parliament should be rigidly statistically representative of the make-up of the population as a whole, or because I believe that without more women in Parliament, women's issues will never be properly represented. I am a firm believer that all MPs should represent the needs and interests of all their constituents. That means men getting involved in issues that particularly affect women, as well as women getting involved in issues that particularly affect men.
	I shall be honest with the House. There was a time when I never thought that I would stand up in the Chamber and support such a Bill. I am standing here because I believe there are many women who are not being selected and elected who would make first-class Members of Parliament, and that Parliament as a whole, and my party in particular, is losing out on a pool of talent that would strengthen the House and enhance its public image.
	The Bill is about more than strengthening the image of politics and the House. I fear that young women in particular are turned off politics because they do not see it as being for people like them. When I was thinking earlier today about what to say in the debate, I confess that my immediate thought was to make the point that many young women were put off Parliament because they see it as a sea of grey suitsalthough I suppose I am not in a position to make that comment today.
	Over the years, Labour and Conservatives alike have achieved significant milestones in the history of women in the House. The first woman to take her seat in the House, although not the first woman elected to the House, was a Conservative. The first woman Minister and later first woman member of the Cabinet was a Labour party member. Of course, the first woman Prime Minister was a Conservative. Both parties can claim to have had their successes in promoting women in Parliament.
	As part of the move to involve more women in active politics after the introduction of female suffrage in 1918, the Conservative party agreed to reserve one third of all positions in the party hierarchy for women. Nowadays, I am pleased to say that women achieve positions in the party hierarchy without the need for such positive action. Notwithstanding the milestones that have been achieved, Westminster ranks 33rd in the world in terms of women's representation, with only 18 per cent. of Members of Parliament in this House being women, as the Secretary of State said.

Helen Jackson: The hon. Lady is making a very supportive speech. She has declared her backing of the Bill and her interest in it. However, does she not feel that the whole of her parliamentary party should be seen in the Lobby or should at least clearly show its support for the Bill throughout the debate? Is she sure that she has the support of the shadow Leader of the House, for example?

Theresa May: I can happily assure the hon. Lady that the shadow Cabinet is of one mind on this matter.
	As I said, I do not advocate a strict, statistically correct approach, but I believe that we need to ask whether selection procedures in political parties are currently ensuring that women who would make excellent Members of Parliament are overlooked simply because they are women or because the procedure operates against them.
	The Labour party's use of all-women shortlists in 1997 led to a dramatic increase in the number of women in the House, although it was challenged in the European courts. [Interruption.] It was challenged in an industrial tribunal, but I think that an issue was raised later concerning European legislation with regard to all-women shortlists. European legislation has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). The Secretary of State will be aware that we do not oppose the Bill, but those who understand that it is important for this legislation to be enacted believe that it behoves Ministers to be certain that it will not fall foul of European law. I trust that the winding-up speech will include a categorical assurance that that is the case.
	I would like to pick up one of the issues raised by the Secretary of State in relation to local councils. The right hon. Gentleman made a very good point about their importance as a possible route into Westminster and a good training ground for Members of Parliament. Obviously, being a local councillor is a valuable thing to do in its own right. I have been a local councillor, as, indeed, has the Secretary of State, and I know from experience that many of the people who are elected to our local councils would also make good Members of Parliament and can see from working in a council that their ambition could go further. Personally, I have always felt that we should encourage councillors to look to Westminster and consider coming here.
	I have already emphasised that the Bill is about the principle of allowing political parties to take positive action to encourage the election of more women to Parliament. Thus, as the Secretary of State said, its timing is significant. It is important that it is introduced early in the current Parliament to enable political parties to make decisions about their selection procedures. That applies especially in respect of the next general election, although other elections are coming along, such as those for the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and so on.
	A number of measures can be taken. Before the last election, the Conservative party had a policy of encouraging our constituency associations to interview at least the same proportion of women as applied for the seat. We are now in the process of reconsidering our selection procedures to see what further measures need to be taken to ensure that women are not discriminated against in the selection process.

Charlotte Atkins: Does the hon. Lady still hold the view that young women who are considering a parliamentary career should not do so until their families are in a position to be left?

Theresa May: I have never held such a view or expressed such an opinion. I suspect that the hon. Lady has read an incorrect report that was featured on BBC Online some months ago. BBC Online made corrections as soon as I saw that the remarks that had supposedly been made were attributed to me, and the production was changed. I am sorry to say that a member of the Conservative party enunciated the views that were expressed, but they have never been mine and I would never make such remarks.

Virginia Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that Baroness Thatcher became a Member of Parliament when she had twin children aged six?

Theresa May: I am very happy to confirm that. Those who have been through the Conservative party selection process consider that the election of Baroness Thatcher at a time when she was the mother of young children showed even more the remarkable nature of that particular lady.

Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Lady also confirm that Baroness Thatcher argued very strongly, on returning to this country after a visit to Moscow, against the provision of child care places? She did so because of the examples that she had seen in the then USSR of poor little children being taken to nurseries at 6 o'clock in the morning.

Theresa May: I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that I have no knowledge of that particular comment of Baroness Thatcher. All I can say is that parties move on in their attitudes to some of these things.
	I come now to the part of my speech in which I can respond to the intervention of the hon. Member for Wirral, West. I wish to speak about a proposal that I have made, together with my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. I am pleased that my hon. Friend is present, as he has long been a champion of the cause of getting more women into Parliamentas, indeed, have a number of my hon. Friends who are sitting behind me.

Jacqui Lait: And beside you.

Theresa May: I am very pleased to confirm that they are also sitting next to me.
	We propose a limited list that is more balanced between men and women, and which includes a proportion of candidates from ethnic minority communities. Such a balanced and limited list would enable associations to continue to have the freedom to select their own candidates, but from a candidates' list that is balanced between men and women. It has long been my contention that one of the measures that my party needs to take is to increase the number of women on our candidates' lists. A limited and balanced list would enable constituencies to choose from men and women in equal numbers.

Stephen Hesford: In reality, we know that Conservative associations can choose whoever they want. They do not have to choose candidates from the list. If they wanted to avoid the issue and choose whoever they wanted, they could do so.

Theresa May: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments. I suspect that he has never tried to stand as a Conservative candidate, as it is obvious that he does not know as much about the party's procedures as he thinks. There is a candidates' list and associations have the freedom to choose from people whose names are on that list, but they cannot choose from outside it. Limited and balanced lists would therefore help to resolve inequalities. I think that the introduction of such lists is a positive measure that could well be adopted.

Sandra Osborne: Is the hon. Lady aware that, before the 1992 election, the Labour party had a policy of including at least one woman on every shortlist, but completely failed to succeed in selecting more women? Does she agree that a positive measure is required?

Theresa May: I accept that view. I have spoken to a number of people about the sort of measures that parties have adopted in the past. The idea to which the hon. Lady refers, which has been debated in the Conservative party, does not always ensure the sort of positive results that we are seeking. As I said, however, my party is currently considering its selection procedure and concepts such as that of a limited and gender-balanced list from which associations can choose their candidates. The number of women on such a list would ensure that more women were selected to fight for seats.

Joan Ruddock: The hon. Lady and I have had a number of conversations on this subject, and I well understand the support that she is expressing today. Do the proposals that she and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) have been discussing include any targets regarding the number of years that it might take for the Conservative party to increase the number of women by, say, 20 per cent. or 25 per cent?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady will know that it is always difficult to predict election results and to know which seats one will be able to win, so it is difficult to predict the number of years that it will take to reach a particular point.

Caroline Flint: rose

Joan Ryan: rose

Theresa May: I am answering the intervention that I have just taken. I hope that the two hon. Ladies who have just risen will forgive me for not giving way, as I am about to finish my speech. A lot of hon. Members want to make their own points in the debate and it is only fair to give them that opportunity. I shall complete my answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). If we had a limited list, we could have a target number of seats. For example, we could have 100 seats, which were divided 50:50, so that we might be looking at getting 50 women into Parliament. We could approach the issue in that way, rather than having a target number of years, which might be more difficult to work with.
	I am grateful for the latitude that you have given me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I realise that we are not here to debate the internal procedures of any particular political party. However, I have raised those points because it is important to show that the Conservative party is examining the kinds of positive action that can be taken to get more women selected without going down the route of all-women shortlistspositive action that a party would have the freedom to pursue under the provisions of the Bill.
	I repeat to the Government that we share their aim of seeing more women elected to Parliament, and we welcome the fact that the Bill will clarify the legal position on positive action in the selection of election candidates. We welcome the permissive principle in the Bill that individual political parties should have the freedom to determine their own selection procedures, and I hope that at the next election we shall all be able to see the life of Parliament enhanced by the election of more women as Members of Parliament.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a time limit of 10 minutes on Back-Bench speeches?

Glenda Jackson: I shall begin by thanking my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench for introducing the Bill with such speed after the Queen's Speech. I also pay tribute to the present Minister for Women and her predecessors who, I have no doubt, worked long and hard to ensure that the House had the opportunity to debate this important issue. I say that with the slight cavil that there is something rather depressing about the fact that, here in the somewhat ironically named mother of Parliaments, in the second year of the 21st century, we are having to debate how to increase the equality of opportunity for women.
	I was extremely encouraged by the speech made by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), leading for the official Opposition. I must be honestI had expected to hear ferocious arguments emanating from those on the Conservative Benches. In the light of the expressions of a couple of female hon. Members sitting behind her, we might still hear some fierce opposition to what is being proposed. We have a side bet running on these Benches as to who will be the first to use the words token and patronising. There is not a lot of money on it, however.
	It is particularly important that the Bill does not attempt to prescribe the methods that political parties use to ensure a more honest reflection of the gender balance of this country. I was surprised to discover from the excellent briefing document produced by the Library that the gender division in the United Kingdom is not, as I had thought, 50:50, but 51 per cent. women. I was interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Maidenhead that there must be more women in the HouseI realise that I am paraphrasingto reflect those issues that are important to women. I have never argued, and I know that the hon. Lady was not arguing, that we need more women because

John Bercow: She did not say that.

Glenda Jackson: If the hon. Gentleman would be rather more silent, he would realise that I was making the point that the hon. Lady was not saying that we need more women because only women can proselytise on issues important to women. I have never believed that there is something called a women's issue. The issues that have made law in this and every other democratic assembly around the world affect, directly and indirectly, the women in those countries. Women are not an homogenous group. There are as many varied political opinions as there are women's views on how we should, dress, bring up our children, and treat or mistreat our male partners.
	To ensure that the life of this Chamber makes a continuing and energising contribution to the democracy of this and other nation states, it is important that we begin to reflect more accurately how the lives of women have changed and continue to change. I do not accept that every woman who comes into this place must be a genius. We shall not have achieved what I desire if the make-up of this place is a conglomeration of human abilities and human moralities, which in the short term would mean that everyone sitting on these green Benches would be a saint or ready for sanctification. That is not what this Chamber should be about. This Chamber should be a reflection of the democratic life of this countryits prejudices as much as its liberalities. There should be a place here for a second-rate woman, as heaven only knows there are places for second-rate men, and have been for a considerable period of time during the history of this establishment.
	The hon. Lady referred to grey suits. Young womenwhether visiting the Chamber to listen to our debates, watching them on television or listening to them on the radioregard the procedures and practices of this place as totally irrelevant to their lives. They cannot perceive anything in this place that is meaningful to their lives, or, more important, any contribution that they could make. That is why it is vital that political parties change the way in which we select our candidates. This is the central and essential issue.
	If we are going to make our democratic processes in central and local government rather more exciting to the electorate, we must ensure that democracy can grow, develop and change. It will have to change. The world at the moment is attempting to come to terms with fundamental and basic changes. When ones reads or listens to exchanges arising, for example, out of the obscenities of 11 September, lip service is being paid to the drastic changes in the world, but there is very little change in our approach to these issues, either philosophically or morally. Certainly there are political changes, but it is one thing to say that we want change, and quite another to deliver it. That is why we have to attach and attract future generations, particularly women.
	What is a political arena essentially about? Surely it is about individuals coming together to create a society in which the unique nature of every member of that society can be fostered and encouraged, and in which everyone can live in a structured way without impediment to discovery or dissent, and without going over the precipice into extremes of violence or refusing to listen to anyone else's point of view. A political arena is about how people construct those societies, and how they develop ways of living together and supporting each other across a wide range of realities.
	Here, I have to make my only gender-biased point. It is that I believe that the lives of most women are infinitely entrenched in the realities of the exchanges between individual human beings, partly because we are expected to carry responsibility across a wide range of lives in our own countries. We are expected to benine times out of 10 we areresponsible for raising children and caring for elderly parents. We are expected to take the role of nurse, doctor, psychiatrist, business manager, chauffeur, gardener, plumber, electrician, window cleaneryou name it, that is what we are expected to do. We are equally expected to have an interest in and commitment to not only our immediate family but our wider community in the world.
	It has been my pleasant experience always to have met and worked with women who are only too happy to accept those responsibilities. They regard them in many ways as a privilege, because the benefits of that day in, day out exchange with human beings can be immense and, indeed, intense. Such commitmentthe rooted sense of what it is to be a human being, with all the accompanying frailties and strengthsis one of my main reasons for wanting 50 per cent. of these Benches to be filled by those of my gender.

Paul Tyler: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) because I very much agree with the points that she made. I shall return to them in a moment. First, however, I must dispel some of the illusions about the Bill. Its scope has been criticisedadmittedly not in the House tonight, but outside. Some have said, Why aren't we dealing with other under-represented groups? Of course, there is a central difference between women and, for example, those ethnic groups that might think that we should do something for them. Women are a majority in this country and in our view that demands a separate approach and a separate priority.
	It is only right to refer to minorities, however, if only because we are missing the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who has an interesting view about their representation. He was quoted speaking at a No Turning Back Group dinner, whatever that may mean:
	All this sucking up to minorities is ridiculous. There are millions of people in this country who are white, Anglo-Saxon and bigoted, and they need to be represented.
	I do not subscribe to that view, but there may be people on the Conservative Benches who do.
	I am delighted with the support given to the Bill by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who made a good speech. I hope that all parties find it in their hearts to examine carefully what they will do under the legislation, even though it is only permissive. That is an extremely important point that she made, and one to which I shall returnbut first the context.
	The Secretary of State made a lot of claims about the great improvements made by the Government, but I draw his attention to the fact that, since 1997 and despite all his efforts and those of the Government to improve the representation of women in public bodies generally, there has been only a 1.8 per cent. increase in the number of women appointees to public bodies. The Department of Social Security, the Treasury, what was the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Office of Telecommunications, the Inland Revenue, the Scotland Office and the Northern Ireland Office all have a smaller percentage of women on their public bodies than in 1997. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) for extracting those figures from the Government.
	On current trends, the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health will reach 50 per cent. in time for a general election in 2005. The Department for Education and Skills may make it within two Parliaments and the Home Office within three. However, we cannot make predictions for the Lord Chancellor's Department, which makes some extremely important appointments, because it has exactly the same percentage as in 1997. The time taken to reach the target in that example could be infinite.
	We approach the debate in that context, to which attention has already been drawn by no less a person than the Commissioner for Public Appointments, Dame Rennie Fritchie. She described the 1 per cent. drop in the overall representation of women between 1999 and 2000 as disappointing and warned of the inadequacies of the present legal situation. She added that those responsible for appointments
	must however ensure that any initiative or positive action they take to encourage or achieve wider representation is within the law.
	We entirely endorse the Government's view that the legislation is necessary, but the debate involves more than how the parties respond to it. Getting more women to stand and getting more women elected is all very wellit is urgently necessarybut it is not enough. It is essential that, once we attract more women to this place, we make it a better place for them to work in. That is not enough in itself either, because, of course, that is not a gender issue. We must make the House a better place for everybody to work in, especially the parents of young children, and it is extremely important to re-emphasise that point in the context of the legislation.
	I have had the privilege to serve on the Modernisation Committee during the previous and present Parliaments. We have been concerned not with spending less time here, but with making our time more productive. That must surely apply to all Members of the House, whatever their gender, age or background. Similarly, it is extremely important to refer to a point made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate in her eloquent speech: we cannot merely make minor adjustments to working hours and conditionswe must consider the culture of this place.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), who is recently elected and obviously able to consider the matter from a woman's point of view, is able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and expand the point. Having been around this place for a long time, it is clear to me that, all too often, women find themselves marginalised and even belittled.
	During the speech of the hon. Member for Maidenhead, there were moments when some male Members on the other side of the House treated her in a way that they would not treat a male Front-Bench spokesperson. We must address that, because it does no credit to the House and it certainly does no good when it is seen on television or heard on radio.

Ann Widdecombe: I never noticed such treatment.

Paul Tyler: The right hon. Lady is a law unto herself and I would not attempt to categorise her in any way, gender or otherwise.
	The real problem is the culture of this place, which is a Chamber in which loud male voices tend to predominate. Let us consider what happens at Prime Minister's questions. Those loud male voices lack respect and courtesy. Okay, we understand that there are moments of high tension and high passion, but not many women want to bellow into the microphone or from a sedentary position.
	I understand that there are always exceptions, but it is not enough to say, Wasn't it wonderful? We happen to have had our first woman Prime Minister in this country. Her husband was able to provide the facilities for personal child care. I do not think that he personally provided that care, but the funds were there to make child care available. That is not enough, however, and it is clearly not an acceptable focus for the issue.
	I simply underline the general points made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate about the culture of this place. Furthermore, the political parties must change. Members from all three major parties will have witnessed those occasions when women candidates are asked questions that would not be asked of a man in a comparable position. We all need to examine that. My own party has sought to deal with it by training and example, but I am the first to admit that we have not been wholly successful.
	Similarly, it is not enough simply to deal with the exclusion of women from the political process. We must try to retain them. Labour Members will remember the high-profile exodus from the House of a Member who simply did not feel that her place was here. There may be particular reasons behind that case, but I believe that it represents a critical analysis of the way we operate and it is extremely important that we address it. Even if it applies only to a minority of women who want to become Members of Parliament, it is a perfectly valid point that we must take into account.
	In the end, the whole exercise is not about favouritism or doing women a good turn. It is about ensuring that we all, and parliamentary democracy itself, benefit from improving the quality of our work, tapping the talents of more than half the population and taking full advantage of the particular skills of those who could bring to the job something that we desperately need. I accept the point that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate made in that connection.
	I am bound to say that there are differing views in my party about the necessity for the legislation. I for one am not an optimist. Like Mr. Gladstone, I am an old man in a hurry, so I am not prepared to wait for the results of an attempt at encouragement from some of my colleagues. That is why we made a commitment in our manifesto to deal with the need for
	more family friendly and efficient working practices for Parliament to bring a wider range of people, particularly women, into Parliament and . . . enactment of an Equality Act.
	At our spring conference this year, we reinforced that point.
	My right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe we need to kick-start the process, and that protective legislation is essential to ensure that it is effective. That applies equally to local government.
	I was slightly disappointed that the Secretary of State gave the impression that it was important to help women to enter local authority work because it was a useful kindergarten for this place. Local government needs the legislation for its own sake as much as we do. In comparative terms our local government figure33 per cent.is rather good, but it is not good enough. Our target is 40 per cent., and I hope that the other parties will take the point too.
	As I said earlier, we accept the permissive nature of the Bill. We believe that the Government had two options, and took the right one. They could have been prescriptive, which we think would have been inappropriate. Permissiveness gives the political parties an opportunity to respond to the challenge within the terms of their own party democracy and their own objectives. In making the Bill permissive, however, the Government have taken on a responsibility that they must openly acknowledge. If we take advantage of these measures, there are still likely to be considerable costs. The Government have made no regulatory impact assessmenta phrase used by thembut there is an impact on the parties, and they should assess it.
	The Government's attitude is patent nonsense. Political parties are businesses or charities, or they are both. To say that there will be no impact and no likely regulatory cost is simply wrong. We ask the Government to consider the issue again, perhaps in Committee. I assure them that, if they do not, my noble Friend Lord Lesterwho I think is the world expert on this subjectwill want to deal with it in the other place. In his view, the Bill as drafted does not fully protect parties against an expensive legal challenge, although such a challenge might not succeed. There is a precedent, in the Neill recommendations on the funding and registration of political parties, for the Government to accept that this is a perfectly legitimate use of public funds.
	The Minister who will reply may wish to contemplate the fact that his party is likely to be first in the dock. I think that the Government should come clean. They will have to assess the cost of the legal advice that may be necessary. Legal uncertainty has bedevilled this issue for many years in the case of both Labour and my party, and it is extremely important that progress towards equal representation is not delayed again because the necessary funding has not been available.
	There should be no doubt about the fact that the permissive agenda is absolutely right, but there may be real doubts about whether we shall make progress if the parties are left to themselves to defend themselves against aggrieved applicants at either parliamentary or local government level. That has already been mentioned.
	My colleagues and I are certain that these measures are necessary now. As the Secretary of State has said, other electoral systems facilitate equal representation in a way that ours currently does not. The balance of male and female members of other Parliaments and assemblies is affected not just by selection procedures but by electoral systems. In the Swedish Parliament, 43 per cent. of memberselected through proportional representationare women. The percentages are 36.4 in the Norwegian Parliament, and 31 per cent. in the German Parliament. My figures for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are not quite the same as the Secretary of State's: according to my figures, 36.4 per cent. of those elected to the Scottish Parliament under PR were women, as were 38.3 per cent. of those elected to the Welsh Assembly. I suspect that that may be because there have subsequently been changes in the composition of those bodies. In any event, the percentages are far higher than those in the Westminster Parliament.
	Incidentally, the Secretary of State did not mention that 40 per cent. of members of the Greater London Assembly are womenagain, elected according to a fairer system. According to my figures, 17.9 per cent. of Members of the House of Commons are women, whereas in the last Parliament the percentage was 18.2.

Julie Morgan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the higher percentage of women in the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament is due to the twinning mechanism introduced by the Labour party, rather than to the list system?

Paul Tyler: That may be true in the case of the Labour party, but my party managed to achieve precise equality50 per cent.in Wales because of the electoral system as well as our internal arrangements. It was a combination of the two.
	I do not claim that there is a magic wand. What I do say is that the Bill is urgently needed now, but I hope and believe that it is strictly temporary, for two reasons. First, there is a very welcome sunset clause. If we manage to achieve a better balance in the House, it can die the death and wither on the vine. Secondly, I believe that in the long term the case for electoral reformof this House as well as other bodies in the countryis so strong that we will find it easier to ensure equality and a gender balance.
	The Bill, then, is temporary but also urgently required. On that basis, I hope that it will be supported by members of all parties.

Helen Jackson: I am delighted by the introduction of the Bill, and delighted to have an opportunity to speak.
	I shall never forget why I fought so hard to win the seat that I now represent. When, as a fairly mature politician aged over 50, I decidedfairly tentativelyto fight for the coming vacancy, my young male colleagues on the local council, who had been there for about a third as long as I had and had about a third of my experience, greeted my decision with the words You? We never thought that you were interested.
	It struck me then that it was simply not in their thinking that I might be a competitor. They clearly saw each other as competitors, and were keen to get on with the selection ballot; but they had not reckoned that someone like mealthough I had a great deal more experience and good sense than theywas likely to throw her hat in the ring.
	That made me think. My experience of life was substantial: for many years I spent time waiting for my children at school gates and attending school meetings, I worked part time to accommodate school hours and school holidays, I travelled with pushchairs on buses, I worked as a carer for my elderly parents in the years before they died and was generally a pretty active political and community person. All that experience, however, counted for nothing when people were considering who might represent them. From that time, I thought My experience is relevant to politics. I had known that it was relevant in local government, but it then occurred to me that it was more important to be able to speak at national level, and I worked hard towards that.
	Women form the majority of users of the public services that receive the bulk of the funds that we parliamentarians provide, yet they form a small minority of members of executive committees. Only 11 per cent. of architects are women. Few women are transport executives, health service managers, senior civil servants giving our Ministers advice or, indeed, decision makers like us, here and in the other place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) said, it is an important disparity in domestic politics that needs redressing.
	Labour has struggled to put those policies into practice within the party, but we need the support of a decision at national levelwe need the whole Parliament, not just the party, to be in favour of achieving equality in representation.
	The issue goes wider than domestic politics. It is important to the whole world, particularly areas in conflict. At the beginning of the previous Parliament, I was asked by Mo Mowlam to be her Parliamentary Private Secretary. She asked me to keep people here informed and to do the talking that PPSs do with Back Benchers, but she also asked me to make and to keep in contact with women in Northern Ireland, to listen to them, to hear them and to talk with them. She did not think that she would hear those voices, with the best will in the world, from her officials and advisers or from the gentlemen of the media in Northern Ireland. She gave me that fairly behind-the-scenes role, in which I was accepted by successive Secretaries of State. The four or five years that I spent working in that context made some difference to the important outcome and implementation of the Good Friday agreement, about which we have been saying, Well done to each other today.
	I found that after years of conflict in Northern Ireland there was a vibrant group of active women at community level, active women's centres and a huge women's adult education programme. Women in the churches were working together, as were women in business, but there was an equally strong antipathy among those same women to participating in organised politics. At that time, there was not one woman here from Northern Ireland in any political party. That has now changed. We have one very welcome woman from the Ulster Unionist party here today. It was clear in those days that that was not really on that party's agenda.
	We are now in another difficult world conflict. I was struck by The Guardian poll not long ago that said that only 68 per cent. of women, compared with 80 per cent. of men, were totally convinced that heavy bombing of Afghanistan was the way forward. As the Prime Minister has said frequently in the House, most hon. Members recognise that bombing a very poor country on the other side of the world will not alone be the answer to the huge difficulty that we face. Now is the time to be hearing, to be listening to and to be talking with women around the worldin Islamic countries, but also elsewhereabout the longer-term outcome and how we get through the international crisis.
	Many people who had the privilege of attending the United Nations Beijing conference for women and the follow-up conference said that one of the most moving elements of the meetings was the chance to talk to women from the Islamic world and from other parts of the world with a different cultural viewpoint. They were able to come together around the big issues that unite women worldwidechildren, caring, education, healthand talk together from totally different viewpoints of poverty and wealth. Now is the time to make it clear that this mother of Parliaments is the right place to say that women's voices are crucial in politics both here and worldwide.

Virginia Bottomley: I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate. I share many of the views of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) about the particular strengths of women and the degree of suffering and disadvantage of women in many parts of the world.
	I need to declare two interests. First, I am vice-chair of the British Council. It works in many of the countries represented at the Beijing conference, in which women do not have access to the education and health care that is needed. They pay the price without any of the privileges, and much needs to be done. Secondly, I am chair of a not-for-profit public sector practice of recruitment headhunters, so I speak with special knowledge of and commitment to the role of women. Of course, my ministerial life was very much involved with trying to secure more female appointments. On the basis of that, and feeling strongly about the need for more women in Parliament, I hope that hon. Members will understand why I have some reservations about where the Bill may lead.
	I feel passionately about women playing an active part. Much more can be done. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) talked about the Government's failure to deliver on their objective to appoint more women to the public sector. One of the measures that I took when I became a Minister at the Department of Health was to insist that the NHS joined Opportunity 2000the biggest employer of women in the world should be the best employer of women in the world. To a degree of ribaldry, particularly from my own colleagues, I insisted that we joined and set targets. Those targets were monitored and for the most part delivered.
	Thirty-nine per cent. of non-executive appointments were filled by women in 1994. The percentage of women who were chairs of new NHS trusts rose to more than 30 per cent. We exceeded the targets. We did so because I had two magnificent women as my allies: Dame Rennie Fritchie, now the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and my noble Friend Baroness Cumberlege. Together we tried to ensure that coaching, mentoring and encouraging schemes were introduced throughout the NHS. Far more women were appointed to non-executive posts. Among them were familiar names such as Baroness Dean, Baroness Jay, Baroness Hayman, my noble Friend Baroness Park, Ruth Deetch and Julia Neuberger. When people are committed to finding women who have talent and merit, it can be done. However, no one suggested that the programme that we set in place was unlawful. My concern is that Parliament is proposing to change the rules for political parties, but not for the rest of the country.
	One of the areas in which I was particularly involved was the encouraging of a rise in the number of female consultants. I must declare another interest. As a junior gynaecologist, my daughter benefits from the supernumerary specialist registrar scheme for women doctors with young children, which I understand is now under threat. That practical measure was available to help people to combine their careers, overcome obstacles and end up, I hope, as hospital consultants.
	I do not believe that we should act only for Members of Parliament. I dare say that the people of this country care rather more about teachers, for example, than they do about Members of Parliament. I say that with regret, and I am very proud to be a Member of Parliament, but I believe that an opinion poll of our constituents would show that teachers receive a higher rating than we do.
	Having spent my previous career working in the inner city, in a child guidance unit and as the chairman of a juvenile court, I very much share the view that many children with fragmented families have no male role model. I therefore feel very strongly that there is a real child welfare and development issue at primary schools where there are no male teachers. Yet we are not proposing to have all-male shortlists for primary schools.
	My worry is what the public will make of our passing legislation that is specifically for Members of Parliament when we are not prepared to pass similar legislation for other professional groups. I believe that if the legislation has to be amended, it has to be amended for a number of groups and not only for hon. Members. If we do not do that, we shall be seen to be giving ourselves different and preferential treatment.

Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I believe that when there is a time limit on Back-Bench speeches hon. Members no longer lose time by allowing interventions. Does the right hon. Lady not see a distinction between elected office and paid employment in other professions? It is the representative nature of the job that we do that sets us apart.

Virginia Bottomley: I find that a very dubious argument. I am very concerned about child development. Indeed, I am as concerned about children being raised with a good experience of both men and women as I am about women being represented proportionally in this place.
	Although I want Parliament to do much more on the issue, I recognise that we have already come a long way. Margot Asquith, a Liberal Prime Minister's wife, said:
	No amount of education will make women first-rate politicians. Can you see a woman becoming Prime Minister? I cannot imagine a greater calamity for these islands than to be put under the guidance of a woman in 10 Downing Street.
	Margot Asquith died in 1945. One of the people who most influenced me in my parliamentary journey was the late Baroness Seear, who was bitterly opposed to special measures for women. Her view was that, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) said, an hon. Member's job is to represent their constituency, including men, women, the able-bodied, the disabled, the young, the old, the rich and the poor. The next step may be to establish special measures for those who are over 60, under 30, able-bodied or disabled. We are setting a very sensitive precedent.
	I think that the House is united in wishing to address the issue of whether more should be done on ethnic minority representation. When I was chairman of a juvenile court 30 years ago, we made particular efforts to try to recruit people from ethnic minorities to serve in the courts, so that the courts had the confidence of the local community. Hon. Members are, however, behaving as though we are quite unlike any other group.
	I have already mentioned the Liberal party. The Labour party, with its tradition of very male-dominated, white trade unions has made a huge change. I welcome the number of women Members and especially the number of women who are serving as Ministers. I hope that hon. Members can learn some lessons without being accused of having legislation that covers us but not other equally influential and important groups.

Lorna Fitzsimons: I appreciate that the right hon. Lady cares deeply about this issue. Does she accept, however, that there is legal recourse for women who believe that they are as talented and able as male counterparts, but feel that they have suffered gender discrimination at work, and that such recourse simply does not exist in the political sphere? Although hon. Members are subject to sex discrimination legislation that is supposed to protect us, we do not receive any of its benefits. If we want to rectify the democratic deficit and low election turnouts, we have to pay attention to women such as one of my constituents, who never became involved in politics until 1997[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Could we keep interventions quite short? Time is very limited.

Lorna Fitzsimons: My constituent said that she now watches the House's proceedings because there are more women in this place who look like her. Now, as she thinks that our proceedings have something to do with her, she is engaged in the political process for the first time.

Virginia Bottomley: I shall certainly pursue that point. I believe that it is enlightened self-interest for all political parties to ensure that more women are elected. We all should and can do much more. Earlier, I gave an example of a programme for which I was responsible and that delivered results. I agree that the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats have not yet delivered the results that we should, but I have been enormously encouraged by the action that my hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) have taken already to ensure that we do better and learn more.
	In 1984, when I was seeking selection as a candidate, selection committees seriously asked me questions such as, Mrs. Bottomley, if you want to vote one way and your husband wants you to vote another way, which way will you vote? A leading Liberal Democrat in the Isle of Wight wrote to the local paper to ask, Why is Mrs. Bottomley going round meetings, factories and schools? Why is she not making supper for her children? My children sharply replied, Mum, she hasn't tried your suppers.
	I endorse the comments of the previous Speaker, Betty Boothroyd, when she talked about the danger of the appearance that hon. Members were too concerned about their own convenience and not sufficiently concerned about their duties to the House. In the case of women parliamentarians, I worry that if we go too far in trying to seem that we are quite unlike any other group, we shall alienate the public rather than gaining their support. What we must have and can deliver is far more women in Parliament. Women are not only the majority but, as recent education results have shown us, the brighter part of the population.

Joan Ruddock: Last week, I asked the Prime Minister a question, which is not something that I do very often. It was a topical, serious question, but before I got half way through the preamble, there were hearty guffaws from Opposition Members. I exempt from that behaviour the Opposition Members who are here for this debate.
	In my question, I said that I was concerned that all the people who had been brought together to form a post-Taliban Government were men. I asked the Prime Minister if he would examine the mechanisms that had truly enabled women's voices to be heard in the political transitions in South Africa and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) said, in Northern Ireland. The knee-jerk reaction from Opposition Members was very important and very telling, as was the parliamentary sketch in the following morning's edition of The Independent, which joked about
	All Women Shortlists in Kabul.
	The brutal suppression of women in Afghanistan is designed to make them invisible in that society. For political commentators to express incredulity at the prospect of women taking any part in a future Afghan Government only demonstrates how successful that regime has been.
	Afghan women are seen primarily as victims, despite the fact that they once had the vote. Indeed, there have been women Members of Parliament in Afghanistan and there is a long-standing and powerful women's organisation called the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan which still operates from Pakistan and undercover in Afghanistan.

Caroline Spelman: Is the hon. Lady aware that, yesterday, in setting out his vision for the future Afghan Government, the Foreign Secretary omitted to make any reference to female representation, although the Opposition have been calling for that?

Joan Ruddock: I thank the hon. Lady for her support. All women Members should be pressing for that representation.
	Being invisible is something that most women understand and many women have experienced. In her opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough gave an example of that fact when she described the reaction of her male colleagues when she suggested that she might be a parliamentary candidate. I believe that that goes to the very heart of why this Parliament is still 82 per cent. male and why we so desperately need this legislation.
	I am delighted to be able to participate in this debate, and I congratulate my right hon. Friends on drafting the Bill and finding time for its passage. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Minister for Women could not attend this debate, but she has been hugely influential in pressing for the Bill's introduction.
	I am particularly pleased because, four years ago, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and I were the first Ministers for Women, we proposed that such an amendment be made to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. At the time, controversy was raging over the twinning arrangements in Wales and Scotland, which have proved to be so successful. People feared then that there would be a Jepson-type challenge. We argued that only by amending the Sex Discrimination Act could we remove that doubt. The time was not right. The word was out; women had had their chance and it was time to return to business as usual.
	Last year, I asked the Library to undertake a variety of calculations. These revealed that, taking all parties into account and without special measures such as all-women shortlists, it would take another 30 years to get equal numbers of women and men in this place. At the rate of increase in the numbers of women pre-1977, it would take 70 years. I estimate, frankly, that if we depended on the Tory party alone, it would take another century.
	That is why I have asked questions today of Tory Front Benchers about the mechanisms that they might put in place, how effective these would be and what the future might hold. That is why, in March last year, I proposed a Bill to amend the sex discrimination legislation. It was supported by a number of my hon. Friends who are participating in the debate today. My early-day motion was supported by 124 Members from six different parties.
	The publicity that that engendered attracted the usual spate of male responses. One man wrote on the subject of all-women short lists:
	Instead of ensuring the lady candidates came from the ranks of the intelligent and achieving ladiesthere are plenty aboutgreat drafts were sent in from the Just Another Bloody Girl Brigade.
	I reckoned he had to be a Tory.
	Another, describing himself as a socialist councillor, said that he was fed up with interferences in the democratic process and would go ballistic if they were inflicted.
	Let me spend a few moments exploring these myths; the quality of candidates and the democratic process. The charge that women candidates selected from all-women shortlists were inferior was made first by commentators who did not know the women and even before they entered Parliament. It was made again, on no objective basis, once they got here. Who actually did the work to compare the 35 new women with 35 new men and found them wanting? What were the criteria anyway?
	The truth is that the real objection was to numbers and to difference. Most, but of course not all, women work rather differently from men. Women in this place have tended to fit less well into its traditions and its style of oratory. Because many of us spoke in favour of modernisation during Labour's first Administration, we raised unrealistic expectations for change that could not and should not have been the responsibility of women Members alone.
	As for democracy, selection processes that attempt to address the gender imbalance in a party's list of candidates can only be positive. When 51 per cent. of the population is female, it is a nonsense to maintain that democracy is well served by a Parliament in which women make up only 18 per cent. of the Members.
	This Bill is permissive and makes no interference with the democratic elections of the country. It enables political parties to take their own democratic decisions about whether or not they wish to put special measures in place to ensure that the electorate has a more balanced number of women and men to vote for, not just as parliamentary candidates in Westminster, but for the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies, the European Parliament and, importantly, local government.
	I am certain that my party will have to readopt all-women shortlists because no other measurewe have tried all the others that I knowwill work for Westminster selections and elections. It will not be easy for the party at local level and we will justifiably continue to be criticised for the fact that people from ethnic minorities continue to be under-represented. However, in the case of ethnic minorities, there is much less ground statistically to make up and I am confident that we can do that.
	The challenge of the Bill lies with the other parties. If the Opposition parties do not change their selection processes, the proposed legislation will be needed long beyond its sunset clause of 2015. Labour Members will all be fighting to win the next election, but the electoral arithmetic is clear. Women losing their seat in an election with any substantially reduced Labour majority would more likely than not be replaced by men.
	The correspondent I quoted earlier asserted that there were plenty of intelligent and achieving ladies out there. Like the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley), I have absolutely no doubt about that. Remarkable women are everywhere. The problem with the political parties is that they do not find them and they do not recognise them.
	Last week, I was privileged to attend the annual Women of the Year lunch and assembly. This unique event is organised by and the inspiration of an exceptional woman called Tony, otherwise known as Lady Lothian. It has been held every year for 46 years and honours 500 women from all over the country, all of whom are chosen for their achievements. The theme this year was courage. The award winners were: Pam Warren, the founder of the Paddington survivors groupthe woman in a plastic face mask; Marie Colvin, the war correspondent, who lost an eye in Sri Lankan clashes this year; and Ellen MacArthur, who sailed alone around the world. These are women who can match men any day. They are all highly visible women, but there were 500 others who are much less visible.
	In many walks of life, women are making a contribution, leading and serving communities. We need those women on our councils and in our Parliaments. We owe it to them to ensure that the political parties adopt selection processes that are designed to end the democratic deficit that so distorts our elected institutions.

Ann Widdecombe: As ever, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who has spoken with much feeling and made a significant contribution to the debate. She will not be surprised to hear that I do not entirely agree with her.
	I have always advocated greater numbers of women in Parliament. I have always wanted to see more women succeeding, not only in getting into this House but in holding positions of responsibility. I earnestly look forward to the day when we have a second woman Prime Minister.

Virginia Bottomley: A Tory.

Ann Widdecombe: Quite right.
	The Bill is fundamentally wrong. I must ask this question; are all the men in this place sound asleep? Do they realise what the Bill means for them? Have they thought that positive discrimination for women can entail negative discrimination for men?
	I am often quite sorry for men. There are lots of injustices with which they have to put up. For example, they do not live as long as we do, but they have to work longer in order to get a pension. That will not be put right for some time. Some 50 per cent. of young men getting married today will not be able to see their children through to maturity in the same household. Whereas in the past women have had it very hard, there are now a few injustices for men. This Bill will create one more.
	The Bill says that it will be permitted, that one could haveapparently we should be grateful that we are not being coerced into itout of all the methods that could be chosen, an all-women shortlist.
	What would that mean for a man in that constituency who had given to his local council the same lifelong service that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) gave to hers, and who had lived in the constituency all his life? Let us say that the man had worked there and escaped from there, and that he wanted to apply for the seat when it fell vacant. He would not be able to represent the constituency if all-women shortlists were in operation.
	That would be the reality for men under this pernicious Bill, yet hon. Gentlemen welcome it as a great step forward. It is a massive step towards inequality for men, and the poor souls just let the women walk all over them. They do not appear to care what will happen to them.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Does the right hon. Lady accept that some of the hon. Gentlemen may be intelligent enough to realise that that has been the experience of women over the 700 years for which our alleged parliamentary democracy has existed?

Ann Widdecombe: Women have been able to apply for seats anywhere in the country, but the Bill would mean that no man could apply for some seats, no matter how strong his claim to consideration.

Evan Harris: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Ann Widdecombe: Yes, I shall be equal and give way to a man this time.

Evan Harris: I am grateful in many ways to the right hon. Lady, and take her admonitions to heart. However, does she accept that the justification for affirmative action and positive discrimination is that it would remedy the effects of the negative discrimination that exists in the selection process? Is she prepared to condemn the special discriminatory treatment meted out by some parties to some women when they tell those women that they should not put themselves forwardand that they will not be selectedunless they have sorted out their child care responsibilities? Such questions are not put to men with children who apply for selection.

Ann Widdecombe: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that when I entered a constituency selection committee and saw that most of the people there were women, my heart used to sink. We should not get the idea that discrimination against women is performed solely by men. It is not.
	I do not believe that the Bill will do little more than deny some deserving men their basic human rights. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) said that there was a bet about when the word patronising would first be used. It is now 8.3 pm, and the time has come. If I had been in a selection committee anteroom with two men who had got there by beating off all the competition yet I was only there because a place had been reserved for a woman on the shortlist, I would not feel helped. I would feel humiliated, insulted and patronised. I am glad to say that my party never did that to me.
	I do not believe that the proposal behind the Bill is what was intended by the equal opportunities legislation of the mid-1970s. I remember that legislation, because I belonged to that minority in my party that believed it was necessary. However, feminists in the 70s said, Give us equality of opportunity and we will show you that we are as good as, if not better, than most of the men. Now, a quarter of a century later, we whinge and whine and demand special treatment because we cannot make it otherwise.
	If that is not an insult to women, I do not know what is. Positive discrimination is always negative discrimination against someone. I want every woman in this House to be able to look every man, from the Prime Minister downor upin the eye and know that she got here on exactly the same basis as he did. She must know that she has defeated all the competition, and that her path was not artificially smoothed by the removal of inconvenient male competition.
	That is the sort of Parliament that I want, and an example of the sort of women's rights for which I have always stood. I firmly believe that the Bill would create two groups of women in the House. One group would be here on the same basis as everyone else, but the other group would be patronised, helped along and specially provided for. That would create two classes of woman MPand that would be just about the biggest danger to the standing of women in the House.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Would it not be a bigger insult if we had to wait another century for equality? That is how long it would take if the current rate of change in the Conservative party were applied to the House.

Ann Widdecombe: There is no reason for the House to wait another century. There are other ways in which women can be encouraged to come forward. In the Conservative party, they will not want to do so on the basis that they will be second-class citizens in the House.
	With great respect to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, I am afraid that I oppose the Bill. I think that it is misconceived and an insult to women. It would also be terrible for the future of men, and the poor souls just cannot see it. They need to wake up.

Caroline Flint: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). This is my 23rd year as a member of the Labour party, and I know that the right hon. Lady is a longstanding member of the Conservative party. I am sure that, like me, she has engaged in discussions for many years about how women's representation can be increased. I have been at many conferences and meetings where all the people attending, male and female, have agreed on one thingthat there should be more women MPs and councillors. The only problem is that some men have not woken up to the fact that more women MPs and councillors would mean fewer men in those positions.
	If a level playing field existed that meant that candidates were selected on merit, that would lend merit to the argument of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. However, that is not the reality, and later in my remarks I hope to outline why.
	I am also pleased to speak in this debate because I was chair of the Brentford and Isleworth Labour party. That was of one of the constituencies cited by Mr. Peter Jepson at the employment tribunal considering his case for overturning the Labour party's position on women-only shortlists. My constituency party volunteered to have a women-only shortlist, and I was pleased that we subsequently elected a woman MP.
	I represent the Don Valley constituency, and I was elected on a mixed shortlist. I do not consider that my roleas a woman Member of Parliament and a woman involved in politicsis to lead the vanguard that all women should follow. My position and circumstances mean that I am an exception to the rule, and I feel that I should do something to ensure that other women have better opportunities to be represented in this place.
	We should recognise and welcome the steady increase in the representation of women in public life and politics generally, although it may not be as great as we would prefer. As someone who has worked in the trade union movement, I take issue somewhat with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson). There is no doubt in my mind that the increased voice won by women in the labour and trade union movement has led to the minimum wage, rights for part-time workers, statutory holiday pay, better child care provision and increased child benefit.
	Men lead on the Front Bench on some of these issues. For example, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done much to tackle poverty in families on low pay, but it is the unsung women in our movement who have done so much to make those policies part of the Labour manifesto and the Labour Government's policies. It is no surprise that when male membership of trade unions was on the decline, unions turned to part-time women workers to become members. They have effected enormous change. My trade union is the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Unionthe GMBand I was pleased to speak at an equal rights conference not so long ago. I paid tribute to all those invisible women, many of whom could have been general secretaries or Members of Parliament but did not have the opportunity.
	I was delighted that, because of women-only shortlists, in 1997 a large number of Labour women entered Parliament. Policies such as the minimum wage, the working families tax credit and increased child benefit have been part of our vision for what we could achieve in government. It is predominantly women, particularly those in low-paid jobs, who have benefited from those outcomes.
	Whatever the outcome of the debate to tackle inequality in representation, we must recognise that inequality still exists in the wider community, in this country and abroad. Job segregation, particularly in the manual sector, means that women earn 80 per cent. of men's hourly pay rates. Women still find it difficult to juggle child care and carer responsibilities and to be valued for it.
	When I go to economic regeneration meetings in my local community in Doncaster, I am faced with a sea of men, whereas the child care partnership meetings are peopled predominantly by women. The value that is placed on both those important activities is distorted and unfair. It is a sad fact that if a male candidate has been involved in economic regeneration and a woman in creating child care places, the person with the economic regeneration experience may score more points of value than the woman whose contribution has been to child care.
	Even the way in which the media portray women says something about the different ways in which men and women are judged. A radio programme the other day referred to research done by major private companies into why women without any child care responsibilities were not getting promoted. The conclusion was that different judgments were still being made. It was said that women get promoted on performance while men get promoted on potential. Merit is not necessarily why people get selected. Too often, people say that a man will go a long way and that even though he has made a few mistakes he has potential and the right kind of face.
	Women continue to gain ground in traditional areas. There is a woman bomber pilot on duty in Afghanistan. We have seen the professionalisation of women's sports. Women have broken through in areas we had never thought possible. However, the fact remains that men run our armed services; they dominate our major sports and will continue to dominate politics for quite a while.
	The achievement of equality of representation in the House of Commons is only part of the picture. My colleagues and I also want to see more fundamental changes in the wider society, to ensure that the experience of men and women is reflected and equality is sought.
	What is so good about the Billand I might have liked it to be more prescriptiveis that it tries to find a way forward in which we can reach agreement across the House. Ultimately, political parties will have to choose how they want to address these issues.
	The Labour party did not take the decision to have women-only shortlists lightly. It did not happen overnight. For many years, every conceivable way was tried to ensure that women got the chance to be selected. We have had the coaching, the makeovers, the training; we have had one woman on every shortlist. At the last round, we even had 50 per cent. of women on our shortlists. However, women candidates who got in touch with me have said that the male networks operated to try and put weaker women candidates on the shortlists, excluding some of the stronger ones. I say that without any problem, because women have different merits, and not all are as good as each other. We all have differing points of view, including political points of view.
	The decision to ask constituents in marginal seats to choose women-only shortlists was a means to an end and was taken after much consideration. As some of my colleagues have said most eloquently, when we worked out the figures, we did not see how we would make any progress in our lifetime.
	We like to believe that this mother of Parliaments is at the forefront of democracy, but that is not true. We are far behind some other European countries in terms of women's representation. Indeed, the agreement at Harare in 1991 to try and ensure that 30 per cent. of representatives in national Parliaments are women has been eagerly embraced by many countries in the developing world. I was fascinated when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development said today that in Pakistan 33 per cent. of those elected in recent council elections were women. We have fewer women representatives in England, Scotland and Wales, and it is ridiculous to suggest that we are leading the way.
	The political parties have to consider how to operate. Let us consider the last two elections. Of those seats which raised our total gains in 1997 to 146and from seats like my own, in which a new candidate replaced a retiring Member of Parliamentwe added only another 10 women MPs. The women-only shortlist, where the outcome was at least 50 more women selected, was the main reason for the change. Little were we to know that the endorsement of new Labour would lead to us exceeding our expectations in terms of numbers of seats won, but in fact, it reverted to type without

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has had her 10 minutes.

Andrew Lansley: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) but sorry that we did not have the opportunity to hear more of her comments. In a sense, my starting point for the support that I wish to give my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) in not opposing the Bill derives from the same origins as the intention of the hon. Member for Don Valley in relation to the Labour party. However we debate the principles of these matters, there is a woefully poor representation of women in Parliament. That is especially true of my Benches, but it is also true of the Labour Benches, and it is important that we change it.
	I will come on to why I think that the Bill does not necessarily suffer from some of the problems to which my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) referred. Perhaps I can go further than my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead in hoping that the Conservative party might use the opportunities available in the Bill.
	We need to do something about the situation. I suspect that in 1975, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, there would have been an expectation that, using the exception provided in the legislation for political parties from the application of sex discrimination legislation, political parties would, if anything, have been more active in pursuing positive discrimination and more successful in achieving the entry of women into Parliament than was the case for some of the other professions.
	When one thinks of Parliament as a profession, one thinks of other professions and the extent to which we, as a Parliament, reflect the nature of the society that we serve. That is why we have to allow the opportunity for more positive action. We do not represent the society that we wish to serve, and we have to do so if we are to be successful as a Parliament. If we consider some of the professions in which women have been increasing their representation, we have clearly failed. In the medical profession, 31 per cent. of doctors are women, but so are 46 per cent. of senior house officers and 50 per cent. of house officers, while 60 per cent. of general practice trainees are women. Although only 19 per cent. of chartered accountants are womennot so many45 per cent. of chartered accountant students have been women this year.
	The law is often thought of as the profession from which so many parliamentarians have been and continue to be drawn. Of the 6,056 entrants to the profession up to July this year, 51 per cent. were women.
	Something very serious is going on. For generations Parliament has been, broadly, a place to which people come from the law, medicine or other professions, but the composition of the House does not reflect the change that has occurred in society. We must do something about that. We have to allow positive action to be taken, but what sort of action?
	The issue is whether we need this legislation to take such action. The problemthe Minister can no doubt explain this better than Iis that it is unclear whether positive action can be taken. We must make it clear. We should be able to take action to treat gendersand, for that matter, races and minoritiesequally. The principles of equal treatment and positive action are not mutually exclusive.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald argued that positive discrimination is undesirable because it results in negative discrimination for others. I am through the gate, as it were, so I am perhaps less vulnerable, but men should not be chary of having to fight for reasonable representation on their merits while women do the same.
	The issue ismy right hon. Friend raised this explicitlywhether, if a man regards himself as exceptionally well qualified to represent a particular constituency, given the nature of our electoral system, it would be grossly unfair for him not to be selected. That is why women-only shortlists are not the way to proceed. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead made clear from the Opposition Front Bench.
	With all respect to the Secretary of State, when he answered my question, I think that he missed the point. The Labour party may wish to go down the path of women-only shortlists, but the question is not whether that is proportionate to the objective; the test will be whether, according to the European Court of Justice ruling on the Abrahamsson case, it will lead to a situation in which
	it will be permissible to confer preference on a female candidate who possesses equivalent or substantially equivalent merits to a male competitor, provided that the candidatures are the subject of an objective assessment that takes account of the specific personal situations of the candidates.
	There is a risk for the Labour party, but as political parties, we would do well to embrace this principle when using the powers under the Bill. We must ensure that where an objective assessment of the personal situation of candidates can be applied, there will always be an opportunity to override what might otherwise be giving priority of preference to remedying the gross under- representation overall.
	I will confine my remaining remarks to the Conservative party. We should set out to arrive at a system that will rapidly amend the gross under- representation of women on our Benches, but which will allow individual constituencies to select candidates on the basis of their individual merits.
	The sort of system that I advocate will operate on the basis that, until now, far too few women candidates who have been endorsed by Conservative central office have been on candidate lists. If we increase the proportion of women, broadly speaking, to 50 per cent., particularly for constituencies that we hold or are most likely to win, we stand a good chance of requiring those constituencies to ensure that we end up with more women representatives.

Ann Widdecombe: Is the small percentage of women on the list the result of the procedures or of the fact that not enough women come forward in the first place?

Andrew Lansley: It is the result of both, but I will not go into the matter at great length. We need to reform procedures and we need to recruit far more women. We will only be successful in recruiting morethere are many women of obvious talent and merit in the Conservative partyif we have put in place a system that makes it much more obvious that they will not be discriminated against and that their chances of selection are at least as good as those of any man.

Stephen Hesford: If a list that is 50 per cent. male and 50 per cent. female is issued by central office and local associations must choose their candidates from it, might not the following happen? Those associations that select first might take the 50 per cent. of candidates that are male because they could choose from either part of the list, and the rest would have to take the women who were left.

Andrew Lansley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. I think that the Conservative party should have something akin to a twinning system, but on a much larger scale, and in biddable and winnable constituencies. Individual constituencies can select candidates who live in their area, subject to the consent of Conservative central office. It is a process that will have to be actively managed by the Conservative party to produce the necessary results.
	No one should be under any illusions. Under such a system, there is no question of candidates being selected who do not have obvious merit. We will be setting out to create a list of candidates, for winnable seats in particular, made up of people who do have such merits. That is why the Conservative party can use this legislation without fear of its being overturned. I fear that the Labour party may go down the path of women-only shortlists, undermine the case for positive action, and put itself at risk of further legal challenge as the equal treatment directive is amended.

Julie Morgan: Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to be here on this occasion.
	On 2 March 1998, during my first year as a Member of this House, I moved an amendment to the Government of Wales Bill that would have exempted political parties from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Obviously, that amendment was not accepted by the Government. Information for the speech that I made then was provided by Val Feld, then director of the Equal Opportunities Commission for Wales, who until recently was the Assembly Member for Swansea East. Tragically, she died in July and I pay tribute to her for the endless work that she did for equal opportunities in Wales. She would have been delighted that this Bill is before the House today with the support of the Government and all the other parties.
	I congratulate the Government on producing this Bill so swiftly in the new Parliament. The need for it is self-evident. As the Secretary of State said, the general election was the last straw. The failure to increase the number of women Members of Parliament firmly demonstrated that some mechanism is needed.
	In Wales there has always been a problem in getting women selected as parliamentary candidates for any of the political parties. At present, women MPsall Labourrepresent only four of the 40 Welsh constituencies. The other political parties in Wales have no women MPs; indeed, the Tories hold no Welsh seats at all. Since women obtained the vote, only seven women have held Welsh seats, and six of them have been Labour Members.
	Since I have been involved in politics in Wales, however, women have always been ready, willing and able to stand for parliamentary seats; they have simply not been selected. It is argued that women do not put themselves forward, but that is not true. In Wales, women have constantly sought selection for parliamentary seats, but they have not been chosen.
	Women are not put off by the hours worked in the House or by its male image. They are not put off by the problems of caring for children or elderly relatives. They have constantly put themselves forward as candidates. Women have experience of juggling jobs and child care; they set up after-school clubs and run voluntary bodies. We women are used to doing myriad things as we juggle our various priorities.
	Why have women not been selected in Wales, even though they always stand? I have no doubt that it is due to a bias against women at selection conferences, even though in many cases it may be an unconscious bias. In Wales, we overcame that bias by adopting the twinning mechanism for the Assembly elections. That resulted in a Labour group of 16 women and 12 mena unique situation. Overall, 42 per cent. of Assembly Members are women. Thus, the Assembly has the best gender balance of all the UK bodies, followed closely by the Scottish Parliament where twinning was also used. That contrasts with the 17.9 per cent. of women MPs at Westminstera drop since the previous general election.
	The adoption of the twinning mechanism was extremely controversial. Argument raged while the procedure was being considered by the party. There was daily debate as to whether it was fair or right or whether it should be implemented. Pro and anti-twinners held demonstrations outside Labour's Cardiff headquarters. Those of us who supported twinning even had a song. It might have been rather banal, but we sang We shall twin to win. The campaign lasted for several months, but it had the desired result.
	After the excellent result achieved for women in the National Assembly, the general election was a huge disappointment in Wales. No more women were elected for Welsh seats. In my party all the seven seats held by retiring Members went to male candidates, despite all the advantages women had gained in the Assembly where they are highly visible and hold prominent positions. Women are in the majority in the Assembly's Cabinet, but as soon as the general election came along everything reverted to type and women did not get a look in.
	Two years after that highly successful twinning campaign to get women into the National Assembly, all that effort came to nothing and we reverted to all-male candidates. That makes the strongest possible case for a mechanism to ensure fair play in Westminster selections. That failure to make progress, or even to protect the progress that has been made, shows that equality in selecting candidates for the Westminster Parliament will not occur naturally.
	Some of my hon. Friends have talked about the different mechanisms that have been used. Many methods have been tried in my party. We started off by saying that there should be a woman on every shortlist. At that time, there was certainly one woman on all the shortlists in Walessometimes more than onebut no progress was made. At the last general election, there were 50:50 shortlists, yet the result in Wales was that no women were selected for those seven seats, even though no one could claim that there were not able and committed women who could easily have come to the House and played a major rolewomen were simply not selected. It was not even that men won four or five of those seven selections; they got seven out of seven. That makes the case for the Bill. A mechanism is needed.
	It is only through all-women shortlists that progress has actually been made. That mechanism contributed to the influx of Labour women MPs in 1997. Three of the four women who represent Welsh constituencies were selected from all-women shortlists.
	I am proud to have been selected from an all-women shortlist. When I think of the selection process, I recall the other women who were on the shortlist, what they had to contribute and the range of skills that they had. They represented different sections of the Labour party and, as has been said, women are not a homogenous group. Party members were able to choose between different political positions. I completely reject the suggestion made by Conservative Members that there are two types of woman MP. That is a dangerous way to talk.
	Proportional representation has been mentioned and I strongly support a fairer system of representation. The Equal Opportunities Commission research document on women in Parliament found that women are twice as likely to be elected under proportional representation as under the first-past-the-post system. However, PR will advance the position of women only if the political parties select women for winnable seats. Although PR under a list system may make it easier and may remove much of the stress and difficulty of choosing candidates, the parties must first have the political will to encourage the greater representation of women.
	Twinning was a one-off and it will be difficult to repeat it, especially as there are many sitting incumbents. It is important to know the Bill's timetable and when it is likely to receive Royal Assent. I fear that that might be too late to influence the process of selection for the next round of National Assembly elections, but the fact that the Bill is going through Parliament may affect the way in which selection takes place.
	If the Bill is passed, the Labour party

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Patsy Calton: I stand before the House a little wiser than I was 30 years ago. Then I believed that discrimination would disappear as more women were educated and joined the professions and commerce. I believed that they would be able to do anything to which they committed themselves and that, gradually, the numbers of women in senior positions in all organisations would increase. I was wrong.
	In some walks of life women have been able to reach the top, on a par with men, but that is all too rare. This place is the supreme example of the failure on the part of a parliamentary democracy to achieve true representation of the people.
	The reasons are many and complex. We hear that not enough women put themselves forward and, indeed, they do not. Why could that be? The perception of this place is that it is a male club That perception results from its adversarial nature and from the laughter at people's trivial mistakes as well as from long speeches that are designedto do what? Little is done to convince the public that anything worth while takes place here.
	In the debate on international terrorism held during the first recall of Parliament on 14 September one woman was called to speak. What was the subliminal message to anyone switching on their television that day? It was that, on an important subject of national and international significance, women had little part to play.
	Worse is the impediment here to getting anything done. Local councils have been instructed by law to modernise, and decision making takes place more swiftly there than it does here. Here joined-up thinking appears not to have even started. No thought is given to the costs of debate, as we all oscillate around decisions for month after month.
	I do not have great experience of Select Committees, but I am aware that they pass difficult topics such as child care provision for Members around like hot potatoes. Even a decision to do something as obviously sensible as opening the Line of Route in the summer recess has taken hour after expensive hour of everyone's time. I emphasise that I do not criticise right hon. and hon. Members, who do their best in the circumstances. It is the system that is impenetrable, and the culture allows that to happen.
	Then there is the language. A young man at a meeting recently told me that when his black friends switched on the Parliamentary Channel nothing they saw had anything to do with them. Very little of it has anything to do with me. This place is an anachronism, a series of archaic procedures. The words modern legislature do not ring true, do they? No wonder some of our young colleagues could not stand the thought of another term of office.
	It is also true that not enough women get through the selection procedures. Why not? It is because there is a mixture of direct discrimination and an inability to select anything that did not have a shave that morning. The male-shaped space wins almost every time in a winnable seat. So why am I here? It is very simple: no one thought I could win.
	I used not to think like this, but years of having Mum metaphorically stamped on my forehead have changed my mind. Given the statistics, the best candidate does not always win the selection in a winnable seat. The person who has had the time to build the party networks and can be flexible because someone else is looking after the children has an in-built advantage.
	The playing field is not even. If it were, many more women would be achieving office already. The Bill gives political parties the opportunity to implement measures to give more women the chance of standing for Parliament and other political office. That process should not stop at elected office. Only a third of appointees to quangos are women.
	The Bill is not without risk to political parties, a problem that was addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
	Some European countries have taken positive measures to ensure more even representation by women. The most successful in terms of outcome have been those that combine proportional representation with a quota system. In the House, there is less than 18 per cent. representation by women. My party has nothing to crow about, with representation by women standing at less than 10 per cent. Women are under-represented in local government, as has been stated, and especially in senior local government positions, which are badly affected by the imbalance.
	We need to stop blaming the victims for the problem and recognise that there will never be true representation in this country until we address the culture of our decision-making bodies. This policy is not about doing women a favour; it is about doing the country a favour.
	It is wrong to regard the playing field as level. The country will continue to need, and should value, the caring role that is largely carried out by women. Most women's lives are not like most men's lives. We need to measure success by outcomes and not the processes used. This country will make no more significant decision this Parliament. We lag behind democracies across the world and action is needed now.

Fiona Mactaggart: I support the Bill because the requirement to improve the way in which democracy functions in Great Britain is important. Our democracy is deformed by the fact that women are inadequately represented in Parliament. There is clear evidence that the only way to change that is to introduce either electoral reform, which I support, or positive action measures such as those permitted in the Bill.
	The policy gives rise to many anxieties, one of which was eloquently expressed by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who I am sorry to see is no longer in the Chamber. She said that men will have to move over to create opportunities for women, but it is not a new phenomenon for one sex to have to give way to another. Men in politics have long built their careers on womentheir secretaries, their wives, their agents and the party volunteers who have helped their careers. Many of those women have sacrificed their own ambitions in the process. Now it is time for men to return the favour to help the political system as a whole to do a better job.
	One cause of anxiety is that a system that provides direct assistance to women produces second-rate MPs. The leader of the Conservative party recently expressed that view, saying:
	All-women shortlists have not been a success for Labour because instead of getting people who are high quality what we have actually got is people who have not really performed for the Labour party.
	He produced no evidence to support that breath-taking observation, and I concluded that he probably did not know which Government Members had been selected from all-women shortlists. I do, so I decided to carry out some research and find the evidence about our performance.
	That evidence shows that we are at least as good as our colleagues and above average in many respects. We are active participants in the Commons: more than 70 per cent. of the 35 MPs selected from all-women shortlists were in the top 50 per cent. in terms of participation in Commons Divisions during the 2000-01 Session. They ask an average number of questions and contribute powerfully in Select Committees. Two have successfully introduced private Members' Bills: my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) promoted the Protection of Children Act 1999; and the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) led directly to the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000. Only 18 private Members' Bills became law in the last Parliament.
	Women MPs are persistent and, as the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions acknowledged, they have helped to ensure that Government policy reflects women's concerns. A parliamentary answer I received on 13 March stated that Budgets set during the last Parliament had improved the incomes of women on average by 440, and of men by 225showing that we are doing our bit as a Government to ease the income gap between men and women.
	Many MPs who were selected from all-women shortlists have been promoted since 1997, so clearly someone thinks we are doing a good job. Eight have been invited to become Ministers and seven have accepted the promotion; 16 have been Parliamentary Private Secretaries. A comparison with other Members elected at the same time reveals that the same proportion of both groups have become Ministers, and a rather larger proportion of MPs selected from women-only shortlists have become Parliamentary Private Secretaries.
	Something close to the heart of every single Member of Parliament is elections. We have done especially well in that respect. Women selected from women-only shortlists have performed better than other Labour candidates. About a third of us increased our share of the vote, in common with about a third of Labour candidates; but candidates who had been selected from women-only shortlists achieved a higher than average share of the vote for Labour.
	Why is all that relevant? MORI reported that only half of the female population expresses any interest in politics, compared with two thirds of men. Figures that are clearly connected to that suggest that 3 per cent. fewer women than men voted in the general election. Compelling research supports the assertion that women think that women politicians are more in touch with what they care about, their lives and their concerns. I think that a strong argument can be made that women in Parliament will help to re-engage women with politics.
	There is compelling evidence that unless we take direct actionand take the brickbats of those who say that because we were selected from women-only shortlists we must be second-class MPswe will not have more women in Parliament. We can disagree about the specific tactics required in individual parties, but we all know that the good intentions expressed by every party so far have failed. We need more than good intentions and half-hearted measures.
	I think that we will pass the Bill tonight, but for many of us its enactment will mark only the start of our work. The next challenge will be to win support within our parties for the action that the Bill permits. It is unusual for politicians to stress the things that they have in common, but women in every party face the same problems. I have talked to women in other parties who, if the selection system was fair, would be in the House. I think of Jean Lucas, the formidable Tory agent in Wandsworth, and my sister who, I am quite glad, is not a Liberal Democrat MP. Women who read reports by the Bow Group or the Centre for Policy Studies about the struggles of women in the Conservative party to be selected, or who listen to accounts of what went on at the recent Liberal Democrat conference, will have twinges of painful recognition.
	We have all been present when someone arrives in the middle of debate, not having heard what was said, and starts muttering critical remarks in a corner. That happens in our party meetings as well as the Chamber. Members on both sides of the House must discuss how they are going to achieve whatever system is right for the culture of their party and how they are going to get more women in Parliament. Unless we take positive action we will not be able to repair the fault in our democracy; at the moment, we have a men's democracy, not a people's democracy. The only way to repair that fault is for every party to design a system that will guarantee to increase the proportion of women standing on its behalf in elections. Frankly, we all know that if we do not, a phenomenon which I suspect worries everyone equally in the Chamber and was obvious in the poor participation in the last election, when only a small number of people bothered to vote, will become more serious. Democracy is democracy only when Members of Parliament genuinely represent their constituencies; we can represent them fully only if our constituents participate in the business of putting us here.
	The Bill is about who the parties offer our constituents. We are equal as MPs because we are all chosen by the people who live in our constituencies, and we should all be proud of representing them. No one here is second-class, but until we get politics in the House of Commons that make sense to our constituents, we will fail the principle of democracy.

Lady Hermon: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) is no longer in the Chamber, as I should have liked to thank her for her kind words about how active women are in communities in Northern Ireland. I want to add to her remarks by bringing a Northern Ireland perspective to our debate and registering the Ulster Unionist party's deep concern that the Bill may result in positive discrimination. We in Northern Ireland have just embarked on a form of positive discrimination that we find deeply divisive and counter-productive; I shall speak about that in due course.
	I am one of only three women in Parliament who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland out of a total of 18 MPs in that part of the United Kingdom. Of course, that is a deeply unsatisfactory state of affairs, but it is a great improvement when one considers that for the last 30 years or so all our MPs were men. However, the House might also notethis gives me no pleasurethat the total of three is inflated, as the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Michelle Gildernew) achieved her 53-vote majority only with the aid of intimidatory tactics in a polling station. Those tactics were described only last Friday by Lord Chief Justice Carswell in an electoral court in his home town of Belfast as extremely reprehensible.
	There is little doubt that women are grossly under-represented in political life in Northern Ireland, particularly when compared to other regions of the United Kingdom. I understand that 42 per cent. of Members of the National Assembly for Wales are women. The figure falls to 37 per cent. for membership of the Scottish Parliament. Much worse is the figure for the new Northern Ireland Assembly, where just 13 per cent. of Members are women.
	I am glad to see the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough back in her place, and I thank her.
	Fortunately, the Belfast agreement was not silent about the role of women in public life. As a strong supporter of the agreement, I was pleased that it enshrined, among many things, a clear commitment by all the parties to
	the right of women to full and equal political participation.
	That is a commitment which the Ulster Unionist party greatly welcomed and still does.
	The agreement also included a provision whereby all the parties affirmed
	the right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity, regardless of class, creed, disability, gender or ethnicity.
	Given the central themes of equality and non- discrimination which run through the Belfast agreement, which I repeat that I welcome, my party would be strongly opposed to any legislation that ran counter to those themes. We in the UUP are opposed to all forms of discrimination, including positive discrimination.
	I alluded earlier to a recent example of positive discrimination. It relates to the recruitment process for the new Police Service of Northern Ireland. For the benefit of right hon. and hon. Members who might not be aware of the fact, I should explain that the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 incorporated a provision which legalised religious discrimination in recruitment, so that 50 per cent. of recruits would come from the Roman Catholic community and the other 50 per cent. would not. In practice, that means that Jewish, Protestant, Chinese, atheist and Muslim recruits who have made it through all the tests on merit may nevertheless be rejected on the grounds of their community backgroundtheir religion.
	My party shares the desire to make the Police Service of Northern Ireland much more representative of the entire community, but we emphatically do not believe that the discriminatory recruitment policy is the way forward. We believe it to be counter-productive and divisive for the new Police Service, and that is not what I wish to see. Likewise, we believe that if the selection of political candidates were brought about by positive discrimination, it would be counter-productive and divisive.
	I have listened carefully to the debate and the contributions from other right hon. and hon. Members. We need a much clearer understanding of the reasons behind the low numbers of women in political life throughout the United Kingdom. I therefore commend to the House the work of the recently established centre for the advancement of women into politics. I must declare that I sit on a voluntary basis as a member of its advisory board. The centre was launched last month, on 28 September 2001. It is based in the school of politics in Queen's university, Belfast, and aims to foster an appreciation of women's contribution to politics, government and public decision making in the United Kingdom and Ireland. I believe it to be the only centre of its kind in Europe.
	The centre considers women's political participation as having two important dimensions: the proportion of women in decision making, and the inclusion of women's perspectives in Government policies and programmes. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to its director, Yvonne Galligan, and also to the lady who opened the centre, who is no other than Mary McAleese, formerly of Queen's university and now the President of the Republic of Ireland. I think that President Mary McAleese's well- deserved rise to become her country's elected Head of State demonstrates that the correct blend of determination and ability can bring political dividends for a woman in these islands.
	I appreciate that the Bill is permissive, as opposed to prescriptive. However, although the Ulster Unionist party will always support equality we shall not be persuaded to support positive discrimination.

Stephen Hesford: I am conscious of the fact that I may be the only male Back Bencher to contribute to this debate. In that respect, I bear a heavy responsibility. I hope not to speak for my 10 minutes, because I do not want to be accused of promoting male domination, especially as others who are present have much more relevant and serious experience of prejudice and loss, which they can eloquently bring to this debate.
	I was going to start my speech with a quotation from Peter Riddell, the columnist on The Times, but when I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) I thought that it would be irrelevant. Fortunately, however, I was rescued by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). I respectfully suggest that she represents more of what the Tories think about the Bill than the hon. Member for Maidenhead, however seriously and honourably she expresses her views. She shakes her head, but we may see in future weeks and months that that is a truism.
	In 1993, Peter Riddell reviewed women's progress in Parliament up to the 1992 election. He wrote:
	But, as in many other professions, there is a long way to go to redress the overall imbalance and the disadvantages which women face when in a career structure favouring men.
	That was true then, and it is still true now. If there is any doubt about the argumentI shall come to some statistics in a momentwe must remember that that is the principle that we are debating. By giving the Bill its Second Reading and then enacting it, I hope that we will defeat it in this placeand not before time. We are considering an issue of principle, which, as other hon. Members have made clear, is about equity for that 51 per cent. of the population who are vastly under-represented in this place. It is also a question of the balanced representation that people who would otherwise be women MPs could bring to this place.
	The Bill is short, but it will have a significant effect on our political body. Many people fear that change, even though they do not expressly say so. I am sorry to say that Labour Members do not come to the debate with clean hands in that respect. I hope that my colleagues will forgive me for saying that the fears that I describe are shared on the Labour Benches. We must grasp that reality.
	Let me read some statistics on women's representation after the 2001 election. Eight per cent. of Conservative MPs were women, and women accounted for 23 per cent. of Labour MPs and 10 per cent. of Liberal Democrat MPs. The Government have done all they could to bring representation of women to the fore in this place by appointing them as Ministers, of whom 30 per cent. are women. In terms of the overall proportions, women are over-represented as Ministers.
	I am pleased to see that that is the case. The Government have done as much as they could. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on looking to bring forward role models to say to the public that this place and this Government in particular are not as irrelevant to their lives as they sometimes perceive. Some 26 per cent. of Cabinet members are women, which is six people out of 23. I would enter a small caveat in relation to that figure, as it takes into account members of the other place. My point, however, is that if there is a political will within the party or parties, progress can be made.
	The Inter-Parliamentary Union compared democracies around the world, and I am grateful to the House of Commons Library for providing this information. Of the 179 members of the IPU, Britain comes in a very sorry 39th in the list of democracies. To put that in stark relief, and with no disrespect to the countries that I am about to mentionin fact, in some ways I applaud themwe are behind Turkmenistan and Vietnam. We cannot look with equanimity on that fact.
	There is a party political element to this issue. Although I welcome the agreement among the Front Benchers of both Opposition parties, one must look at the reality. The proportion of women Liberal Democrat candidates has fallen since 1992. I have to askperhaps rhetoricallywhether, in the light of their recent conference decision, they come to this debate with entirely clean hands. However, I welcome their support, if support it is.

Evan Harris: I am not entirely sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making, and I am not entirely sure that he knows either. We have recognised that we have a problem, particularly with winnable seats. It is somewhat easier to put up women candidates in non-winnable seats. We focus on the winnable seats, and we have a numerical problem with that, given the electoral system. We recognise our problem and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that we bring that recognition to our support of the Bill.

Stephen Hesford: I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will forgive me if I simply move on.
	In the 2001 election, 15 per cent. of the Conservative party's female candidates were successful14 out of 92, its lowest successful proportion ever. So Conservatives cannot, come to the debate claiming that up-to-date statistics are glad tidings.

Theresa May: We have said nothing of the sort. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech, he would have heard me say that my party needs to ensure that we, in particular, increase the representation of women on our Benches.

Stephen Hesford: I hear what the hon. Lady says. When the Labour party, struggling with this difficult issue before the 1997 general election, moved to all-women shortlists, there was almost unanimous derision from the Conservatives.

Caroline Spelman: indicated dissent

Stephen Hesford: The hon. Lady shakes her head, but it is true. There was complete derision.

Theresa May: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is trying to pick a fight, but I do not think that the need for a fight exists. Although I recognise that one or two speeches in the debate have taken a different course, it has been interesting to note the degree of agreement about the need to do something to increase the number of women in Parliament. It is right that members of my party have challenged the concept of all-women shortlists; indeed, I did so tonight. The important point about the Bill is that it will enable parties to do what they believe is right in terms of taking positive actionpositive action of all kindsand my party will take the action that we believe is necessary, which may well not involve all-women shortlists.

Stephen Hesford: We have heard the comments from the Conservatives. I have to say that the contribution of the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) was somewhat schizophrenic. She began by speaking in favour of the Bill, then seemed to argue herself out of that view by the end of her speech. The hon. Member for Maidenhead made the same kind of argument in a less obvious way. I submit that this is and remains a party political issue. The courage shown by the Government in introducing the Bill forces the issue, and I commend the ministerial team for that. I hope that the Bill receives a Second Reading.
	Two arguments are put to me as a male Labour Member. One is that the legislation is not a doorstep issue. People ask, Why are you bothering to bring the Bill before the House? Introducing it is a point of principle, which is important in itself. If we cannot legislate on important points of principle, what good are we in this place?
	The second argument is that the legislation is a doorstep issue for all those constituencies that are more than adequately represented by my female colleagues who were elected in 1997 on all-women shortlists. I am absolutely honoured

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Walter.

Robert Walter: I am delighted that there are two women on our Front Bench to represent the Opposition viewnot two token women but two of the most effective women in Parliament. As well as speaking on women's issues, they hold key shadow Cabinet portfolios.
	The Bill marks another milestone in the slow progress in western democracies towards political equality between men and women. The measure should be unnecessary, but alas the inbuilt prejudices that have existed throughout the battle for women's representation persist today. That battle extends back to the 19th century and even before, and I am reminded of it every morning. Hanging on the wall outside my bathroom is an item from the collection of political memorabilia owned by my wife, Barbara Gorna. She has campaigned for political equality for many years, as have many women Members, and she inspired me in that cause. She also stood for election to the House in 1997, albeit unsuccessfully.
	I am reminded of the battle for women's representation by the bloodstained scarf worn by Emily Davison when she fell in front of the King's horse at the 1913 Derby. Hon. Members will remember that Emily Davison died in Epsom hospital on 8 June, but my wife has the telegram sent from Buckingham palace to the jockey on 7 June:
	Queen Alexandra was very sorry indeed to hear of your sad accident caused through the abominable conduct of a brutal lunatic woman. I telegraph now by Her Majesty's command to enquire how you are getting on and to express Her Majesty's sincere hope that you may soon be alright again.
	Queen Alexandra would be at home on many parliamentary selection committees today.
	Progress in the House began with the Reform Act 1832, which massively extended the franchise, although alas not to women. In 1867, the franchise was further extended and by 1869 a small group of female ratepayers gained the vote in municipal elections. At the time, a remark of particular relevance to today's debate was made. Benjamin Disraeli said:
	In the present age, and under the existing circumstances of the country, the best way to maintain and strengthen the character and functions of the House of Commons was to establish them on a broad, popular basis.
	I do not have to remind hon. Members that it was not until 1918 that the House managed to extend the franchise to women over 30. In October that year, it gave women the right to sit in the House of Commons. The opposition then, and in 1928 when the franchise was finally extended to give women equality, was deep-seated, bigoted and misplaced. The hon. Member for Enfield, Colonel Applin, said:
	There are at least 75 per cent. of the people of this country who do not want this thing . . . I feel certain that I am right. It is not an equal franchise; it is an unequal franchise.
	Colonel Applin calculated that there would be 2.2 million more women than men on the register. He went on:
	It will give the women the power over the finances of the country.
	Thenin a fashion that might find some support among selection committeeshe went on:
	It must mean taking on grave responsibilities, which would perhaps be too great a burden for women.
	Colonel Applin was interrupted by at least one woman Member at that stage, but he ploughed on:
	Suppose a woman sat on that Bench as Chancellor of the Exchequer . . . Imagine her introducing her Budget, and in middle her speech a message coming in
	he obviously had some foresight about pagers
	'Your child is dangerously ill, come at once.'
	He concluded:
	It is obvious that, with a thousand cases like that, the whole system must break down.[Official Report, 29 March 1928; Vol. 215, c. 1392-93.]
	And so, today, we come to this Bill. Britain currently has one of the lowest levels of political representation of women in Europe. It has been argued that the best way in which to counter the trend is for parties to use positive action mechanisms. Encouragement, coercion and shame do not work; where positive action has been used, it has dramatically increased women's representation.
	The last election saw 118 women elected to Parliamentless than in 1997. That represents progress at a rate of about 1.5 women per year in the 82 years since women have been eligible to sit here. Now we have gone into reverse: in the European Union, only Ireland and France have lower female representations.
	Positive action, is needed not because women are not able to succeed on merit but because discrimination in the selection process means that they are rarely given an opportunity to try. Experience from across Europe has demonstrated that the use of positive action is a key factor in the determination of whether a country has high levels of female representation. Better training and support for potential female candidates are of course necessary, but they have not made a significant difference.
	Today we have an opportunity to amend the Act that outlawed Labour's all-women shortlists. There are those who argue that candidates should be selected simply on meritthat the best candidate for the job should be selected, regardless of gender. In an ideal world, of course, those candidates should be selected on merit, but at present that does not happen. Opaque discrimination is inherent in the selection processes of all political parties. If a selection committee is determined to choose a male candidate, the woman candidate will not be selected no matter how good she is.
	The predominantly elderly selectors tend to have a clear vision of their ideal candidate. In the Tory party he is married, 40-something, with a reasonable career in the City, the law or the Army. A bit of experience in local government helps, but the real clincher is the attractive wife, two smashing kids and a labrador.
	Positive action is needed not because women cannot succeed on the basis of merit, but because discrimination means that all too often women are not given the opportunity to stand. There are those who say that discrimination should not be countered with more discriminationdiscrimination against men. They say that two wrongs do not make a right. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made that point. But positive action is not designed to discriminate against men as revenge for the discrimination suffered by women; it is designed to level the playing field, to allow women to compete for parliamentary selection on the same basis as men.
	I have heard female colleagues suggest that it is patronising to women to suggest that they need this kind of help. There are clever party functionaries who say that the problem is not that women are being discriminated against but that not enough women are putting themselves forward. They would say, Why bother? But every political party contains talented women who have been trying for years to be selected to fight a safe or marginal parliamentary seat. Even in the Labour party, and I speak as no expert, half the aspiring candidates shortlisted for safe Labour party seats were women, yet only just over 10 per cent. of those seats went to women.
	I have heard successful male candidates argue that women are coming forward but that they are not good women and that with positive action we end up with low-quality Members of Parliamentobviously, those without smashing kids, jam-making spouses and pedigree labradors. They suggest that women elected under Labour's all-women shortlists in 1997 are a prime example of that. I could make a cheap party point, but in all honesty there is no evidence to suggest that the women selected under all-women shortlists are any better or worse than the rest of their parliamentary colleagues.
	The Bill is permissive. Political parties may take advantage of it if they wish. It will not force any political party to adopt positive action mechanisms. It is a desperate measure, but it is temporary. It is essential and it is timely.

Charlotte Atkins: In the United Kingdom, the watershed for women parliamentarians was the election of the Labour Government in 1997 and the election of 101 Labour women to Parliament. Before that, women had never made up more than 10 per cent. of all UK Members of Parliament. But we cannot rest on our laurels. We have just 118 women MPs now. Less than one in five MPs are women, which is well below the record of our European neighbours.
	I am particularly pleased that the Bill extends to local government because it is often at local level that women are most activefor example, as school governors, tenants, representatives or representatives of church organisations. It is a natural step for many women to stand for council and find a route to wider political involvement. However, that route to empowerment locally and nationally can be blocked for women. Only one quarter of local councillors across England are women, despite women's traditional involvement in grass-roots politics. I do not think that anyone in their right mind would suggest that that is because women are less able than existing male councillors.
	Local government can be a valuable training ground for politicians, but my concern is that we are failing to attract young recruits, just as we are failing to enthuse young people about voting. I recently visited a sixth form in my constituency for a political debate. I was particularly impressed by the articulate and well-informed girls who quizzed me. A few years ago, when I visited schools as a local councillor, it was difficult to get girls to be vocal and to participate. Now there is no holding them back. It is the boys who are less forthcoming.
	If my constituency is anything to go by, we have talented young women interested in politics, but how do we transform that interest into involvement? The Bill will do a lot to help, but we must do more. Putting citizenship on the curriculum is a step forward but democracy should be a real part of young people's lives. All schools should have school councils that mean somethingnot talking shops but forums to listen to pupils' views and to act upon them.
	We must involve young people in their communities, giving them a stake in those communities. Then they will want to vote and to involve themselves in community politics. I know that that is easier said than done, but it has to happen if we are to have a healthy democracy. Let us be in absolutely no doubt: ensuring that women of all ages are involved at every level of government is about building a healthy democracy. We cannot afford to exclude over 50 per cent. of our population from political representation, but that is what we have done. Since 1918, of Members who have served in the House of Commons, only 6 per cent. have been women. That is shameful.
	The trade union movement is another traditional training ground for Labour Members. All too often, however, as Fawcett Society research has demonstrated, good intentions on women's representation are often sidelined in the desire to get favourite sons into safe or winnable seats.
	My experience with Unison has been rather different from that. Prior to the 1997 general election, Unison created a parliamentary panel of 12 members, 10 of whom were women. It provided training, advice, support and assistance with printing, and four Unison women were elected. I am delighted that another woman from Unison, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking), joined us in 2001. Unison's use of a small panel enabled it to give support to women candidates which helped them to be selected. I believe that unions have a proud record in promoting women's rights in the work force, by training and by representation. If they have the political will they can do the same for women parliamentarians.
	The selection process itself is central to the promotion of women candidates. It is vital that parties adopt rules that are clear and very much in black and white. Any perceived bias in the selection process must be eradicated if women are to believe that they have an equal chance of selection. There must be a level playing field for all applicants on access to membership information, the use of conduct rules, postal votes and contact with party members, and also concerning the types of information that candidates can circulate.
	I support women-only shortlists because too many women have been put on shortlists simply to reach a 50 per cent. quota. Women-only shortlists helped to break the logjam back in 1997, and they can help us to make further progress now. They are not an insult to women.
	In my selection, I defeated five men. In the mid-1960s, when my father was selected as a candidate for Preston, North, he was chosen from an all-male shortlist. However, he did not feel patronised because he was not taking on allcomers. At that time, women were not even considered for selections. No one batted an eyelid that he was selected from an all-male shortlist because it was traditional, old-fashioned sexual discrimination. It was not positive discrimination to secure a Parliament that properly reflects the experience and skills of the whole population.

Adam Price: I shall keep my speech short.
	It is a great pleasure to speak on behalf of Plaid Cymruthe party of Walesand the Scottish National party on this very important and welcome Bill. It is a pleasure also to add another Welsh voice to the debate. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) said, we come from a country that has elected only seven women to this place from the more than 1,500 Members that we have returned here since the Act of Union. Now, however, in the excellent record of the National Assembly, Wales is leading the debate on structures of representation for women.
	As we have heard today, the evidence shows overwhelmingly that the problem lies not with the voterswho are only too happy when given the opportunity to elect women Membersor with women, but with parties and institutions. That is the clear message that I am taking away from this debate. As we heard, many women find the culture of the political arena alien, unfriendly and sometimes even hostile. Consequently, many of them reject politics entirely. Other women face more practical obstacles in juggling personal and political commitments.
	Despite the welcome changes in recent years, the sitting hours of the House and the parliamentary programme have still not been adjusted fully to take into account the dual burden carried by many women and also by many men. I draw hon. Members' attention to the family- friendly hours that are operated by the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. We could learn much on the issue from those institutions.
	Lack of confidence is one of the key reasons for women's under-representation in formal political institutions, and this shows the importance of a supportive culture within parties and institutions in nurturing women's political self-confidence. In this regard, I pay tribute to the exemplary record of the Scottish National party, which has had a strong record over the years in terms of women's representation in this House. The party achieved a representation of 43 per cent.17 women MSPsin its Scottish parliamentary group without mechanisms. That shows the health and strength of that party's commitment to gender equality.
	We as a party in this House do not have such a good record; that is why, in the 1990s, we instituted a gender balance commission and placed the women candidates for the National Assembly elections at the top of the regional lists. Together with the decision of the Labour party in Wales to operate twinning arrangements, that ensured the excellent result that women made up 41.6 per cent. of representation at the National Assembly for Wales. It should be noted that, throughout Europe, that level of representation is surpassed only by Sweden at 42.7 per cent; it is an excellent and creditable result.
	It is because of the great advances achieved in the devolved Administrations in recent years that my party welcomes the legislation and urges the Government to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible, to facilitate still further the selection processes for the National Assembly for Wales. I am pleased to tell the House that our equal opportunities director is currently developing proposals on ensuring fairness and gender equality in the choice of candidates, and these are to be passed at a special constitutional conference in November.
	We welcome and support the Bill, although, in passing, I should point out that the Labour Government might have saved some parliamentary time if they had had the courage to challenge the Jepson ruling, as the Equal Opportunities Commission asked. At least they have given us a valuable opportunity to have a necessary debate, and to look not just at the issue of representation but at the issue of culture and the attitudes that too often exclude people from the mainstream of modern politics.

Sandra Osborne: I want to concentrate my remarks on the Scottish Parliament, because I believe that its success in selecting women can teach us many things.
	The sixth of May 1999 was an historic day for the political representation of women in Scotland with the first elections to the new Scottish Parliament when 48 women entered the Chamber as elected Members. The representation rate was over 37 per cent. and that broke all records for the representation of women in politics in Scotland at local, Westminster and European level. We were only beaten by Wales in that respect, although that was welcome. The significant difference between the parties in terms of the number of women MSPs is directly related to the action or inaction that the parties took to encourage women candidates, either in constituency seats or in the list.
	The Scottish Labour party had a 50:50 gender balance; 28 female and 28 male MSPs were elected. Some 43 per cent. of the Scottish National party's MSPs were female; the figures for the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives were 17 per cent. and 12 per cent. respectively. The election results demonstrate that even with a newly elected Parliamentwhere there is no incumbency barrierequal representation of women cannot be taken for granted. It can be argued that the results provide evidence that political campaigning and specific policies and mechanisms are essential to ensure that women are represented in significant numbers in political life.
	The increase in the number of women elected to the Scottish Parliament is due in part to sustained campaigning by women's organisations and civic society in Scotland, and reflects the different approaches taken by the different political parties in Scotland. Prior to the election, all parties stated their concern to see more women in politics and their intention to encourage women to come forward for selection. But the Labour party was the only party to operate a specific mechanism to achieve that. Recognising that, under the additional member system, most Labour seats would be gained on a constituency basis, a scheme was devised to twin constituencies to allow both men and women to stand for election.
	The Liberal Democrats signed the electoral agreement published in the Scottish Constitutional Convention's final publication, entitled Scotland's Parliament, Scotland's Right. They committed the party in principle to gender equality in the new Parliament. They initially proposed a so-called zipped system to get women on the lists at a reasonable level. However, they later reneged, and the party, at its annual Scottish conference, voted against the proposal. The fact that nothing was done contributed to the fact that Liberal Democrat party has so few women in the Scottish Parliament.
	The Scottish National party also proposed a zipping system. Although its conference rejected that proposal, the party put women high on selection lists with the result that its level of women's representation has reached a respectable 40 per cent. However, I argue that the party's use of a specific mechanismin this case not women- only shortlists, or twinningwas absolutely necessary to produce that outcome.
	The Conservative party continued to express its opposition to special measures, saying that it would select people on merit. I make no comment about the Conservative men who are Members of the Scottish Parliament. I have beaten one of them twice in elections, but I welcome the apparent turnaround in the party's approach to these issues. I am surprised, and gratified by it. I hope that it will be reflected also in the Scottish Conservative party.
	The Scottish Parliament proves that a specific positive measure is the only way to get more women into politics.

Caroline Spelman: Tonight's debate may have come as a surprise to some hon. Members, and it is possible that more than one speech anticipating opposition to the Bill from Conservative Front-Bench Members has had to be scrapped. I am delighted that some Labour Members have recognised the important change in my party's approach to this matter, which in fact was made just before the last general election. The turnaround is perhaps not as sudden as has been made out.
	There is simple recognition among hon. Members of all parties that not enough progress has been made in getting women elected to Parliament. No one is against getting more women into Parliament and, although hon. Members differ about how to achieve it, that is the common point from which the debate begins. In that sense, the debate has not been party political. Those who have tried to make it so may have misjudged the mood of the House.
	I hope that the Conservative party has demonstrated its lead on this issue by fielding a woman to open the debate and another to wind it up. We were also joined for much of the time by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). For the record, 50 per cent. of female Conservative MPs sit on the Front Bench. That shows that those who get here get on.
	I am sorry that the Secretary of State has not returned to his place, but he referred at the outset of his remarks to various initiatives that he has taken to help women in the workplace. He mentioned improved maternity benefits, support for low-paid women and better child care arrangements, but unfortunately, such measures are not likely to help in the context of Westminster, where there is no official maternity leave and no child care facilities, and where we MPs are not remotely able to describe ourselves as low paid.
	I am glad to see that the Secretary of State has now returned, so I hope that one of his colleagues can advise him of the point that I have just made. My description of the House is not what puts women off. Women are put off by a strong and true perception that it is very difficult to get selected, and that, once here, the experience is not especially easy. No one aspiring to Parliament would expect an easy life, but good candidates are lost, or never get started, because of the poor perception of the House.
	That perception is based on hard fact: 82 per cent. of MPs are male and, as several hon. Members have noted, that compares unfavourably with other Parliaments in Europe. Closer to home, greater progress has been made with the devolved Assemblies. My hon. Friends and I are especially keen to support the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), and we, too, are keen for more female representation in the Northern Ireland Assembly. What is even more embarrassing for the mother of Parliaments is that many Parliaments in the developing world have achieved better female representation than we have.
	We support the principle enshrined in the Bill which will allow political parties the freedom to choose from a range of measures to help increase the number of female Members of Parliament and return them to this place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said, we should not get hooked up on women-only shortlists, as they are only one of the measures that could be used. A range of measures are possible under the Bill, such as the additional training of candidates and selectors, or the scheme proposed by my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridgeshire, South (Mr. Lansley) and for Maidenhead. We believe that it should be for individual parties to decide on the best mechanism for selecting their candidates.
	Not surprisingly, the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) showed a hazy understanding of Conservative party selection procedure. We have massively enfranchised our grass roots, with each member of a local association having an equal say in choosing the candidate. It is highly democratic, but with those rights come responsibilities to choose the best candidate. Understanding what best means requires training, but as the law stands, that could be illegal. The change in the law would make it legal in the future.
	I understand the sensitivity of women who claim that they feel patronised by the Bill. At the Liberal Democrat conference we saw the clash of views between the leadership advocating women-only shortlists and their candidates wearing T-shirts bearing the slogan, I don't want to be a token woman. None of us wants to be a token woman, and I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) does not regard me or my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead as a token woman in any way. The correct form of positive action should be chosen to suit a party's culture, and it need not imply tokenism.
	I received good advice from some Labour women MPs who told me that women-only shortlists have created a backlash at local level. We intend to learn from that. It is one of the reasons why I am not in favour of that measure. However, there is much we can do to improve the situation by changing our selection procedure, and several recommendations have already been made in our party to achieve that.

Evan Harris: Does the hon. Lady recognise that if the Conservative party rejects all-women shortlists, which it is perfectly entitled to do, and when the Tories eventually reject first past the postas they willnew options under a more proportional system will be proposed, such as pooling or zipping?

Caroline Spelman: With respect, I think that the real question tonight for the hon. Gentleman's party is to decide what it will do under the Bill.
	There is no denying the fact that the use of women-only shortlists in the Labour party had a dramatic effect in the 1997 election. However, some of the euphoria of the system's proponents was deflated by the outcome of the successful challenge by a male candidatethe so-called Jepson case. At the time there was much debate about whether a change to the laws on sex discrimination would be compatible with European law. Those of us who support this change in British law make a strong plea to the Government not to get egg on their face a second time if there is a legal challenge regarding its compatibility with European law. That is the Government's jobthey have the necessary resources and lawyers at their disposal. It is our job, as an Opposition, to ask whether European Union compliance has been exhaustively checked. I should be very grateful for the Minister's reassurance on that point tonight.
	Conservative Front Benchers welcome the Bill's permissive nature and we will support this change in the law. However, I warn the Government that we may vote on the timetable motion on a point of principle. The Bill enables the parties to choose what will work for them. No country has significantly increased the representation of women in its Parliament without some form of positive action. There is no reason why the United Kingdom should be any different.
	We should put tonight's decision in the context of falling electoral turnout and the female voters who tell us that they are turned off by the style of politics in this place, to which they cannot relate. We need to think how to make British politics more attractive and accessible, and tonight offers the opportunity to show our willingness to try something new which can make a difference.

Nick Raynsford: We have had a good debate with an encouragingly large number of speakers20 in total, of whom, significantly, 17 were in favour of the legislation. I appreciate the support that we received from those on the Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Front Benches and from Plaid Cymru. We certainly intend to proceed on the basis of consensus to achieve an important change that will make a real difference in the representation of women, not only in Parliament but in democratic institutions throughout the United Kingdom.
	The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) supported the Bill and pointed out, fairly and forcefully, that the Conservative party in particular was losing out on opportunities from the reservoir of talent because of the way in which the selection processes operate. She showed some reluctance to answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock)whether the Conservative party would set a target for increasing the representation of women in the party. I hope that the hon. Lady will think further about that.
	The hon. Lady also asked about compatibility with European law, which is an important point. I must make it absolutely clear that the Government would not want any amendments to domestic law to be found to be in breach of Community law. I am confident that the Bill is compatible with EU treaty law and does not contravene the United Kingdom's international obligations. The Government's view is that the selection of candidates does not fall within the ambit of Community law, in particular the equal treatment directive. I hope that the hon. Lady finds that reassuring.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) made a powerful speech in favour of increasing the representation of women in this House, but not because specific women's issues required the attention of womenshe made a strong case against there being specific gender issues. She made the sound and sensible observation that Parliament should reflect the full range of talents and variety in our society and that it should be more representative of women in particular.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), speaking for the Liberal Democrats, tried to widen the debate to cover appointments to public bodies. I suspect that the motive might have been to draw attention away from his party's difficulties at its recent conference with affirmative measures to assist women's representation. His review of appointments to public bodies was a little selective.
	We are the first to admit that there is an enormous way to go, but it does not do the House any service to paint an unduly gloomy picture. Looking at the record of our Department in government, I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman of the real advances that have been made in the past four years.
	I have three examples. In 1997, the Audit Commission comprised 38 per cent. women; now, 56 per cent. of its members are women. In 1997, only 18 per cent. of the board of the Housing Corporation were women; now it is 38 per cent., with a woman in the chair. When we came to office, the advisory panel on standards in the Planning Inspectorate had no women members. Now, four of the seven members are womena majority. So there are good examples of cases where affirmative action has been taken and the position is improving.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall compared himself to Gladstone, as an old man in a hurry.
	The difference is that William Ewart Gladstone carried his party with him on most issues. The hon. Gentleman has not been able to carry his with him. His experience at the party conference must have been galling. How can he have felt when Jenny Willott, a representative of the Liberal Democrat party, said that Labour had won most of the female vote at the 1997 general election because it had women candidates in winnable seats? She said:
	They looked like a women-friendly party. Any woman who looks at the Lib-Dem parliamentary party now, no disrespect to any of them, but they don't exactly look a women-friendly bunch.

Paul Tyler: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that she voted for me?

Nick Raynsford: I am delighted that someone feels that the hon. Gentleman at least is woman-friendly in that otherwise women-unfriendly bunch.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the question of European treaty law and the European convention on human rights. I hope that my response to the hon. Member for Maidenhead deals with that point. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the concerns expressed by Lord Lester as to the need for a regulatory impact assessment. We shall consider that and I am sure that it will be raised in the upper House.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) gave an entirely apposite description of her experience when she first announced her intention to stand as a candidate for election and was greeted by incredulity in her own locality. That was a telling example of the problems faced by women wanting to stand for Parliament. My hon. Friend also spoke movingly of her experience in Northern Ireland, where she made an important contribution, liaising with women's groups to advance the peace process.
	The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) was one of three Members who did not support the Bill. She referred specifically to public appointments and expressed concern about that field. I am pleased to be able to tell her that, since 1997, the number of women on health authorities has increased from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. as a result of measures taken by the Government which I am sure she will support.
	The right hon. Lady is confused in thinking that the Bill applies only to Members of Parliament. It applies to people seeking elected office in the United Kingdomwhether to Parliament, the devolved Assemblies, the European Parliament or local councils. The measure is comprehensive and covers the full range of elected posts.
	The right hon. Lady raised the issue of ethnic minorities. That is a fair issue and an important one to consider. However, there are very different considerations. The right hon. Lady knows well that the distribution of ethnic minority groups around the country is varied; in many areas, they make up a relatively small proportion of the total population. It would thus be extremely difficult to set up a simple, national system of universal application to enable that particular discrimination to be tackled by legislative means. By contrast, we know that throughout the country, area by area, give or take about one percentage point, there is equal representation of men and women in every constituency.

Virginia Bottomley: The contrast that I was making is with teachers. Would a primary school with an all-female staff who felt that it would be right to appoint a male teacher because it was important for the children to have a male role model be prohibited from drawing up an all-male shortlist?

Nick Raynsford: As an experienced Member of the House, the right hon. Lady knows that there is a fundamental difference between people who are appointed to paid employment and people who are selected as candidates and then stand for election. That is a fundamental distinction recognised in the Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford, in an eloquent and moving speech, set out the strong case for the Bill and for ensuring more effective and extensive representation of women. I pay tribute to her for all the work that she has done to ensure that the issue has come before the House. She has been an assiduous and persistent campaigner for the measure.
	The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was the first person, predictably, to use the word patronising, which she did at 8.03 pm, as forecast by some of my colleagues. She also referred to a phrase used by a member of her party in the past: whingeing and whining. The fundamental problem that the right hon. Lady must face is that her recipe would leave the Conservative Benches continuing to be overwhelmingly occupied by males91.6 per cent. to be precise.
	The right hon. Lady suggested that she had other ways of dealing with the problem. She did not specify them but, given that she was in full flood as she put forward that view, it reminded me of nothing less than King Lear. Towards the end of the tragedy, as his wits began to go, King Lear said:
	I will do such things
	What they are yet I know notbut they shall be
	The terrors of the earth.
	The right hon. Lady's ideas will be the terrors of those on the Opposition Front Bench.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) explained the impact of women-only shortlists in redressing the imbalance. Hers was an important contribution.
	The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) supported the principles behind the Bill, but raised questions about compatibility with the equal treatment directive. He referred to the Abrahamsson case butand he will be aware of the significance of thisthat case was brought in relation to the appointment of a candidate for an academic post. There is an appointment distinction, which I have already made, between the appointments to paid posts and the selection of candidates who stand for election. That is why we are confident that the equal treatment directive will not apply.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) opened her speech by paying tribute to Val Feld for her important work on equal opportunities in Wales. I would like to add to that, because I worked closely with Val Feld when she represented Shelter in Wales many years ago. I knew of her sterling qualities. My hon. Friend also commented on the difficulties that women had encountered in being represented in Wales, and referred to the important advances that have been made recently.
	The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) referred to problems of the male club in the House of Commons, and my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) highlighted the important contributions that women have made as Members of the House, particularly in promoting private Members' Bills and as Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries.
	The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) was one of three Members who did not support the principles behind the Bill, but she conceded the difficulties that face the women in Northern Ireland who seek selection. I trust that, as she considers the Billit is a permissive oneshe will realise that it moves in a direction which, I hope she will be able to support.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) approved of the Bill, and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) gave us an entertaining account of the past 150 years of history, including a reference to an obscure blimpish MP in the 1920s. The hon. Gentleman drew a veil over the party affiliation of that obscure military man, but I wager that he was not describing a member of the Labour party.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) gave a robust defence of all-women shortlists, and the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) referred to the proud record of the Welsh Assembly, where 41 per cent. of Members are women. That would not be the case, however, if more than 50 per cent. of the Labour Members in the Assembly were not women. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) made a parallel point about the important contribution that women have made in the Scottish Parliament.
	We have had a very good debate. We have heard much about issues of representation and about the unacceptable levels of discrimination under current arrangements. A fundamental problem needs addressing, and most of us will agree that something must be done, and done soon. The Bill is permissive and aims to open up for political parties the options that are available. It will give them the flexibility to pursue options that will advance women's representation in the way that the parties think is most appropriate. In doing so, they will have to consider carefully how women and men are represented at all levels of government. Our proposals are proportionate and are designed to be appropriate to the problem that they seek to resolve.
	The Bill will remove the excuse provided by the Jepson case for not facing up to our responsibilities. It will enable political parties to adopt appropriate measures. I believe that it will make an important contribution to improving our democracy. It is a short, simple and elegant solution, which will seek to redress a fundamental imbalance that has marred our Parliament for far too long. I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

SEX DISCRIMINATION (ELECTION CANDIDATES) BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to Order [28 June],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

Programming of proceedings

2. All proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or any further messages from the Lords) shall be programmed.

Proceedings in standing committee

3.(1) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 8th November 2001.
	(2) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

4.(1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
	(2) Sessional Order B (programming committees) made by the House on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.[Mrs. McGuire.]
	The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 70.

Question accordingly agreed to.

OFF-ROAD MOTOR CYCLES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Heppell.]

Colin Pickthall: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a problem that is causing great concern in Skelmersdale, the largest town in my constituency and the place where I live. I am even more grateful that it falls to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) to reply to the debate. He and I were two members of a notable band of brothers who were incarcerated in the Cloisters when we arrived in Parliament in 1992. At that time, my hon. Friend was our man in the south-west, now thankfully joined by several other colleagues in the region. He was, and probably still is, famed for the clarity and resonance of his voice. In my first six months or so in Parliament, I came to know more about Plymouth docks than I did about West Lancashire. This evening, I aim to return the favour; I am delighted that my hon. Friend is now a Minister, and trust that he will be so for a very long time indeed.
	The new part of Skelmersdale was built for pedestrians and is a labyrinth of walkways, which were intendedadmirably at that timeto separate pedestrians from traffic. Inside the estates, the pedestrian ways often pass right before front doors without intervening gardens. The estates are tunnelled by passageways which debouch unannounced on to further pedestrian ways. The town is characterised by a high proportion of young people; it is an extended playground for young children, and many hundreds of young mothers push prams and baby carriers about the place.
	In recent years, many of the estates have been bedevilled by off-road motor bikes, both youngsters' bikes and adult trial bikes of the type usually associated with scrambling, a sport of which I strongly approve. My estimate, which can only be a rough estimate, is that there are about 100 off-road bikes being used inside the estates, mostly by teenagers, but sometimes by children as young as six or seven.
	Residents have for some years complained bitterly about the noise nuisance, but in recent months increasingly about the physical danger presented by bikes roaring round their houses. The police are deeply concerned about the matter, but are severely handicapped by the impossibility of giving chase to the offenders. Given the structure of the estates, any chase would simply multiply the chances of a serious accident. We have seen many examples on our roads in recent years.
	Two citizens in particular in Skelmersdale have given me vivid accounts of the activities of bikers. Mr. John Gresty of Eavesdale has researched the problem and tells me that it is also common in inner Liverpool, which is not far away. Mr. Gordon Leather of Feltons describes how he was struck by a trial bike ridden by a 13-year-old on a footpath. Mr. Leather was catapulted over a garden wall and received injuries to his legs, back and shoulders, for which he has been receiving hospital treatment since March. He tried to pursue the matter to seek redress, only to be informed by solicitors from the Motor Insurers Bureau that he could not claim because the motor bike was on the pavement. In any case, he could never have identified the lad responsible for the accident.
	I have a personal experience to record. While I was driving through one of my estates during the general election campaign, my car was struck by a young man aged about 17 on a trial bike, who shot out of the shrubbery and hit the front of my car. He went underneath the car. Fortunately, I was going very slowly, at about 10 mph. It was an election campaign andmy hon. Friend the Minister will be familiar with thisI was looking for a long-lost canvass team, buried somewhere in the estate. However, from the crunching noise, I honestly believed that I had run over the young man's head. I got out of the car, terrified and shaking. It turned out that he was not seriously hurt, but the bike was completely demolished, to his evident distress, as he said it was a mate's. It had no identifying marks on it at all. I was so relieved at the outcome of the accident that I took no further action, especially as his bike fell to bits as he tried to pick it up, which was rather comical. In retrospect, I should have carted him off to the police, especially as about 300-worth of damage had been done to my car.
	The police in Skelmersdale have taken the problem seriously and are close to prosecution in a number of cases, but they are frustrated by the fact that when they catch and deal with a young offender for dangerous driving or riding on the highway, the culprit, once he has been dealt with, returns to his bike. There are no powers to confiscate bikes, which would be a terrific sanction for the police to be able to employ.
	I know that consideration of such powers is a matter for the Home Office, but I also know from my time as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Home Office that there are regular discussions between officials and Ministers in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Home Office on interface issues, particularly concerning sentencing for road offences. I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that the serious problem that I have described is included in those discussions as a matter of urgency. There is no doubt in my mind that there are deaths waiting to happen out there on the estates in Skelmersdale.

Caroline Flint: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, about something that is a problem for many of his fellow Members of Parliament. The Doncaster crime and disorder partnership has identified motor bike nuisance as one of the issues that it intends to address. I concur with my hon. Friend on the fact that the police need powers to confiscate the bikes, but does he also agree that housing departments should consider seeking eviction if a family are conniving and encouraging their children to cause this nuisance?

Colin Pickthall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I have been unable to ascertain the extent of the problem and it is interesting to know that it is happening in her constituency as well. I am a little uneasy about the idea of eviction sitting on the back of it, but that is another matter.
	The police have dramatic evidence of the dangers that my hon. Friend and I have described, and they have shown it to me. Some weeks ago, the Lancashire police helicopter was in the vicinity of Skelmersdale and was asked to look at a motor cyclist who was riding dangerously through one of the estates. It captured on video many minutes of this 13-year-old, as he turned out to be, zooming past people's doors, along footpaths and through the ginnels. At one pointI have seen the tapehe shot through a group of people, striking a man and spinning him round. Fortunately, the man was not seriously injured. The rider spotted the helicopter and sought to shake it off, but he could not; it followed him and the chase ended when the lad got home. His mother came out of the house and hid the bike in the kitchen. I am reliably informed that many of the kids hide these bikes in their bedrooms, although how they get them upstairs, I do not know.
	To my mind, the case for action against these characters is clear. I believe that it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that police have more powers to deal with them. However, there are other aspects of the problem that need to be addressed. A couple of weeks ago, I met two young 14-year-old bikers to discuss these problems. David McCullock and Karl Matthews told me that they wished to use their bikes legallythey were decent young lads and I believed thembut that that presented them with great difficulties as to how and where they could ride them in safety.
	We must consider whether it is reasonable and safe to allow children to own motor bikes, which can be lethal weapons. No doubt, some parents believe that they are doing their children a great favour by buying them bikes, not taking into account the fact that their use almost inevitably involves riding on roads and thus breaking the law. They consider neither legality nor insurance responsibility. Having paid large sums for the bikes, they are then reluctant to prevent the children from using them.
	I heard of one case in which the sale of a bike to a boy who is an epileptic was refused by the vendor, so his father turned up and bought it for him. In my opinion, that was very misplaced generosity. Parents have a huge responsibility. One of the boys to whom I spoke told me that he had possessed a motor bike since he was seven years old. David and Karl made the incontrovertible point that, as long as it is legal for them to own an off-road motor bike, it is reasonable for them to have somewhere to use it legally.
	The police, youth service and council in West Lancashire are all keen to identify an area where bikes can be used without causing danger to pedestrians. I am very keen to help with that. We have tried to establish a site before, but people living close to the area that was identified made an enormous protest about the potential noise nuisance, which is always a problem in urban areas. Even in rural areas, where scrambling tracks are not uncommon, the noise can be ferocious and can carry a long way. I have a problem on the border of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), where noise created at a track in one local authority and constituency area is causing nuisance in the neighbouring one, which is mine. Such cross-border problems are very difficult to deal with. We may be able to identify suitable areas in industrial estates, but we will then face the problem of ensuring that the off-road bikes get to the legal venues without riding on roads or using footpaths. The logistics could be very difficult, although that is matter for local agencies and councils to consider, alongside the many other demands on their resources.
	I was uncertain as to how widespread the problem was. I raised the matter at a Lancashire police forum a couple of months ago and was told that, in Lancashire, it seemed to be confined to Skelmersdale. However, since then, I have learned that it is a problem in inner Liverpool and in Doncaster. It may be that there is a particular problem in Skelmersdale because of the peculiar geography of the town.
	In summary, I am certain that it is not right to place the onus on pedestrians in Skelmersdale to dodge these missiles. It is not right that the residents should be harassed by the persistent noise emanating from bikes roaring up and down the walkways just outside their homes, often in the early hours of the morning. That happens very frequently; it is not an odd occurrence. It is not right that a situation that clearly presents a risk to life and limb should be allowed to drift without an effective remedy.
	I therefore ask my hon. Friend to use his ministerial authority to institute an examination of the whole issue of off-road motor bikes: the circumstances of their sale; the suitability or otherwise of young children's ownership of such bikes; the insurance requirements; and the powers of the authorities to prevent the abuse of these bikes and to protect citizens from the effects of their abuse. It is my duty as the MP representing Skelmersdale to do something about this menace before one of my constituentsone of my neighbours, indeedis killed, rather than seeking to do something after a killing has happened.

David Jamieson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall). He and I first came to the House in 1992 and I remember those heady days in the Cloisters when we almost had to sit on each other's laps. It says a lot for the accommodation situation in this place that things have improved so much over the years. I remember my hon. Friend as a strong advocate for many causes, but, as we have heard tonight, he has most of all been a powerful voice in this place for his constituents.
	I will ensure that the points that my hon. Friend has raised are dealt with in my Department's discussions with the Home Office. In the short time that I have this evening, I shall give some background to the issue and try to clarify the law as it stands at the moment. During my hon. Friend's contribution, I could not help thinking that, yes, the law is there to make sure that people are protected, but that there would be no need for the police or other agencies to intervene with these young children, some as young as seven, if parents were doing their job and making sure that their children were not causing the kind of nuisance that my hon. Friend so clearly described.
	I am sorry to hear that my hon. Friend was the victim of such an incident; I know how distressing that can be. I was glad that neither the young man nor my hon. Friend was injured. I also hope that my hon. Friend's constituents who have been involved in these unfortunate incidents are making a rapid recovery.
	I assure my hon. Friend that I appreciate his concern about the use of these vehicles in inappropriate places, and about the noise nuisance and safety problems that they cause. This debate gives me the opportunity to explain to the House my Department's current consideration of the ways in which we might better regulate their off-road use. I shall go into a little detail about that, and I shall outline the current position on the use of off-road motor cycles on the public highway and on the pavement.
	When an off-road motor cycle, such as a scramble or trial bike, is used on the highway, it is considered to be a mechanically propelled vehicle. As such, it is subject to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, which requires such vehicles to have vehicle excise duty paid in respect of their use. It should also comply with the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989. These require that vehicles must be safely constructed in terms of lighting, braking, tyres and so on. Anyone riding an off-road machine on a road could be prosecuted for failing to comply with these regulations.
	Riding or driving any vehicle on the pavement is an offence under section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, and the police are responsible for enforcing those provisions. That became a fixed-penalty notice offence on 1 August 1999, which has made enforcement somewhat easier. Before issuing a fixed-penalty notice, however, the police and traffic wardens must see the vehicle being driven on the pavement, as opposed to simply being parked there.
	My hon. Friends the Members for West Lancashire and for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) suggest giving the police powers to confiscate vehicles. Although the police have no powers to confiscate vehicles used illegally off roadthere are no plans to give them such powersa general power exists for the courts to enable them to confiscate property used in the commission of crime, which includes vehicles when certain conditions are fulfilled. One is that an offenceperhaps, for example, drinking and driving, causing death by dangerous driving, an offence of manslaughter or wanton and furious drivingbe imprisonable under the Road Traffic Act 1988.
	Other powers are available that may be relevant to the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire. For instance, charges may be brought for breach of the peace and causing a nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Part III of the Act, as amended by the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993, provides local authorities with the powers to prevent or abate noise nuisance from any vehicle, machinery or equipment on the street, premises or land.
	Those powers could apply to the use of off-road motor cycles, but it would be for the local authority environmental health officer to judge whether a problem complained about could be deemed a statutory nuisance. If that were the case, the authority would have to serve an abatement notice on the person responsible for the vehicle. If the person responsible could be found, the notice could be fixed to the vehicle.
	Other available powers are in the Road Traffic Act 1991, which allows for prosecution against dangerous driving and careless and inconsiderate driving of a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place. They enable prosecutions to be brought for offences committed while driving vehicles in off-road areas to which the public have access. Under section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861the example of wanton or furious drivinga rider of any such vehicle causing death or bodily harm to any person whatever could be prosecuted by the police.
	As scramble or trial bikes are classed as off-road vehicles, other statutory requirements relating to on-road motor cycles do not apply. That means that there is no minimum age restriction, nor is there any requirement to have a driving licence, hold insurance or wear a safety helmet.
	The Motor Cycles (Protective Helmets) Regulations 1998 require riders and passengers on motor bikes to wear helmets when on a road. We currently have no plans to extend that to off-road use of bikes. The nature of off-road use, which tends to be infrequent, often on private land and usually over difficult terrain, means that effective enforcement would require many scarce police resources.
	To ensure that every off-road motor cycle rider has a driving licence, a national registration scheme for all off-road motor cycles would have to be put in place, but it would be costly to set up and administer. It is doubtful whether those who occasionally use unlicensed off-road motor cycles would comply with the scheme and it would be difficult to enforce, which would add to the burden on the police.
	I understand from the Association of Chief Police Officers that, in its view, the current legislation is sufficient to deal with the majority of off-road motor cyclists and it is not seeking the introduction of any additional offences or powers in that respect.

John McDonnell: I do not want to contradict the police officers who advise my hon. Friend, but I must reinforce the point that this is a key issue. Apart from car dumping, it is the worst environmental crime in most of our constituencies. We cannot cope. Whatever advice has been provided to my hon. Friend we need changes in the law and it is critical that we tackle the issue. Lives are at risk on pavements, in public parks and elsewhere.

David Jamieson: I thank my hon. Friend. Perhaps the following remarks will deal with the issues that are important to his area.
	I shall now say something about what we have done to combat the problem of off-road motor cycles in public spaces and on land. Under section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is an offence to drive a motor vehicle without permission on to common land, moorland or land of any description that does not form part of a road. It is also an offence under that section to drive a motor vehicle on a footpath or bridleway.
	The offences under section 34 did not extend to off-road vehicles, because a motor vehicle was defined in section 185 of the 1988 Act as
	a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on the roads.
	As some motor cycles, for example scramble motor cycles, are classified as off-road vehicles, such vehicles were not covered by the prohibition in section 34. However, an amendment to section 34 was included in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which received Royal Assent on 30 November. That amendment had the effect of extending to off-road vehicles, the offence under section 34 of the 1988 Act, and came into force on 1 February 2001.
	Another use of off-road motor cycles is for off-road motor-cycle racing. Under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, any land can be used for up to 14 days in any year for motor cycle racing, including trials of speed, without the need for an application for planning permission. The only exception is land within a site of special scientific interest, where express planning permission is always required.
	The Government recognise that, although such activity is restricted to 14 days a year, local people can be significantly disturbed by the noise that it creates. Without the requirement for planning permission, a local planning authority has no opportunity to impose suitable conditions that could reduce the impact of such activity.
	Last year we commissioned Baker Associates to conduct research including consideration of the temporary uses provisions. Its report was published in September this year. The researchers recommended that the temporary uses provisions should be withdrawn entirely, and that no temporary use should be allowed without express planning permission. That recommendation would apply to off-road motor cycle activities. I am sure that that comes as good news to my hon. Friends.
	Before deciding whether to accept the researchers' recommendations, we will issue a public consultation paper early next year. It will include options for amending the temporary uses provisions. I hope that my hon. Friends' constituents who are affected will participate, and will make their views known either directly or through my hon. Friends.

Caroline Flint: Would my hon. Friend consider discussing with his counterparts in the Home Office how local authorities and the police can use antisocial behaviour orders to build a case against persistent harassment on estates when residentsindependent witnessescan give accounts to the police, so that those kids can be dealt with under the regulations and laws already provided by Government?

David Jamieson: I think that in certain cases in which disturbances are extreme, it would be worth establishing whether they fell within the relevant part of the law. Tonight I have tried to refer to matters that are the responsibility of my Department; when we have finished our consultation, we willrapidly, I hopedecide on the most appropriate way in which to proceed.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire for raising an issue that is important to many people in many constituencies. Such offences often affect the quality of life of the most vulnerable, such as younger children and the elderly. My hon. Friend spoke with his usual thoroughness and, as always, with great good sense.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.